Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appeal relates to a judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 895 of 1984. The Second Appeal was filed by the defendants, in a suit for possession. The suit had been decreed by both the trial court and the first appellate court on the ground that the plaintiff (appellant) herein is the Saunjidar of the land in dispute and he had been dispossessed forcibly and illegally. The High Court held that when a person is claiming a title, right or interest in the property in dispute either being a owner or a saunjidar or tenant, then the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. Saunjidar right is an interest claimed by the plaintiff the appellant herein. Therefore, the civil court cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It is only the Collector under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) who can decide whether the plaintiff had any saunjidar rights in the property in dispute. Accordingly the appeal was allowed, judgment and decree passed by the courts below were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant herein were dismissed. Though several points were urged in support of the appeal, the basic issue which was urged was that the Second Appeal in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (in short the Code) has been disposed of without formulating substantial question of law by the High Court. It is, therefore, not necessary to deal with the factual aspects in detail.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court was not justified in disposing of the second appeal without formulating the substantial question or questions of law, as mandated by Section 100 of the Code. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that though the High Court has not formulated the questions of law as required, yet on analyzing the evidence, it concluded that the views expressed by the courts below were not tenable in law, and the civil court had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit. It is further submitted that though no substantial question of law was formulated before the Second Appeal was adjudicated, yet that is permissible, because proviso to Sub-Section (5) of Section 100 permits the High Court to decide a second appeal on a different substantial question of law subject to recording of reasons. ;