Sureshwar Thakur,J. -
(1.) The plaintiffs' suit, seeking therethrough rendition, of, a decree, for declaration, and, for permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra Nos, became decreed, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior-Division), Court No. 1, Mandi, through its verdict made, on 31.8.2012. The aggrieved therefrom defendant, one Raj Kumar, instituted thereagainst an appeal, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, thereon(s) the latter, through its verdict, made upon Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2012, decided on 3.7.2015, dis-affirmed the impugned verdict made by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), upon Civil Suit No. 79 of 2007. Consequently, becoming aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiffs reared the extant appeal, before this Court, and, when it came up for admission, on 19.4.2016, it became admitted, upon hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:
"1. Whether the first appellate Court has committed error of law and facts in misconstruing and misapplying the provision of Section 57 of H.P. Holdings (consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, which is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case?
2. Whether the First Appellate Court below has misconstrued and misread oral and documentary evidence lead in the case?"
(2.) For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the judgment made by the learned District Judge, Mandi, upon Civil Appeal No. 99/2012, where through, he reversed the judgment and decree, made upon Civil Suit No. 79 of 2007, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Court No. 1, Mandi, and, where through the plaintiffs' suit, for rendition, of, declaratory decree, and also for rendition, of, a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a -vis, suit Khasra, became accepted, rather, does not, call for any interference, being made therewith.
(3.) The primary and foremost reason(s), for making, the afore conclusion, becomes spurred, from the plaiontiffs', casting an averment, in Civil Suit No. 79 of 2007, vis-a -vis, the consolidation authorities, during the course, of theirs' carrying consolidation operations, upon the suit khasra Nos, (i) theirs breaching the apposite scheme for consolidation, and, also the Rules framed thereunder, where through an interdiction rather became cast, against the land under house, threshing floor, cowshed etc., becoming amenable, for consolidation. The afore echoing occurring in the plaint, did, obviously enjoin, upon, the plaintiff, to adduce evidence, comprised in the scheme for consolidation, and, as became purportedly reckoned, by the consolidation authorities, hence becoming ensured to be exhibited, and, also the plaintiffs became enjoined to, place on record, the Rules, hence casting the afore interdiction. However, a reading, of, the evidence on record, does not, disclose, that the afore documentary evidence, rather exists on record, for hence succoring the afore averments, as, become cast in the plaint. The effects, of, wants, adduction, of, the afore best documentary evidence, hence, by the plaintiffs, when upon existence(s) thereof on record, would visibly, rather leverage them to argue with utmost tenacity, (ii) that hence the preparation, of, the revenue records, appertaining to the suit khasra Nos,. by the consolidation authorities concerned, during, and, after theirs concluding, the, holding(s), of, the consolidation operations, vis-a -vis, the suit khasra Nos, becoming legally fallible, given theirs infringing the afore adduced exhibited documentary evidence. Necessarily, wants thereof, cannot empower them, to contend that the proceedings, drawn under the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, vis-a -vis, the suit khasra Nos, becoming erroneously drawn order, nor they can contend that they become mis-constituted, (iii) whereas, thereupon(s), prima-facie, dehors ouster, of, jurisdiction, of, Civil Courts, as, becomes contemplated in Section 57 thereof, and, specifically, appertaining to matters, arising under this Act, may, become un-attracted. However, when the afore best documentary evidence remained un-adduced, nor, when evidence, for, eroding, the vigor, of, the afore apposite statutory bar, and, as comprised, in, the consolidation proceedings, evidently breaching, the, norm, of audi alteram partem, and, therealongwith besides, embodied, in, theirs proving qua the consolidation authorities, creating fictitious, and, doctored records, and, also hence relying upon them, (iii) thereupon no espousal can be reared before this Court, that the afore creation, of, a statutory bar, against institution(s) of, civil Suits, before the Civil Courts concerned, against those matters, appertaining to proceedings drawn under the Act, does not assume, re-enforced vigor, contrarily, it does assume complete vigour. Consequently, this Court, is, constrained to answer the afore extracted substantial questions of law, against the appellants, and becomes further constrained to dismiss the instant Regular Second Appeal, and, also becomes constrained to affirm the verdict recorded by the learned first appellate Court, upon Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2012.
3. In aftermath, the extant Appeal, is, dismissed, and, the impugned judgment made by the learned District Judge, Mandi, and, is, affirmed and maintained. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are dismissed. No costs.