(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned District Judge of Mahasu and Sirmur under Section 100, Punjab Tenancy Act. The plaintiff Mandir Narayan Deota filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of certain dues for grazing their sheep and goats on a pasturage known as the Kanda Kalga Patan. The defendants denied the plaintiff's right to claim the grazing dues. It appears that there were two previous decisions, one dated 1 4 1994 B. passed by the Raja Sahib of Bushahr and the other dated 21 5 1946 A. D. passed by Sir Dalip Singh as Judicial Committee. The plaintiff relied upon the former and the defendants upon the latter decision. The trial Court, the Subordinate Judge of Rohru, decreed the suit on 25 4 1949 on foot of the judgment of the Raja Sahib without going into any other question. The defendants went up in appeal to the District Judge and there raised for the first time an objection that the suit was not cognizable by a civil Court. The District Judge held that the present was a suit of the class mentioned in Section 77 (3) (o), Punjab Tenancy Act, which under the provisions of that section should have been heard and determined by a revenue Court. He has, therefore, submitted the record of the suit to this Court under Section 100(1) of that Act.
(2.) BEFORE entering into the merits of the reference I deem it necessary to refer to the mistakes committed by the learned District Judge in making the reference. I do so in order that similar mistakes may not be made in future in this newly formed State. The initial mistake committed by him will appear from the order which I passed under Order 46, Rule 5, Civil P. C., returning the reference for amendment in the light of the observations made by me in that order. The order is reproduced below:
(3.) THE sole question for determination before me, therefore, is whether or not the parties have been prejudiced by the mistake as to jurisdiction committed by the trial Court, and what is the proper order that this Court should pass in this reference.