AMBAKA Vs. AJMAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ajmat (respondent 1) filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Mandi against Ambka, Ruldu and others seeking a declaration that an order of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector, against him under Section 3, Himachal Pradesh Tenants (Rights and Restoration) Act, 1952, was not binding upon him, and further praying that the defendants be restrained permanently from interfering with his possession.

(2.) Ajmat's main contention was that the order in question was passed to his detriment without notice to him. The learned Senior Sub-Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was not competent and accordingly non-suited Ajmat. Thereupon, Ajmat went up in appeal to the learned District Judge, who differing from the opinion of the trial Court, held that the suit did lie to the Civil Court. Consequently, the case was remanded under Order 41, Rule 23, C. P. C. Against this order of remand, Ambka and Ruldu have come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard at considerable length this morning. For reasons to be stated shortly, I am of the opinion that there is no force in this appeal.