NIRMAL SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of Additional District Judge, Patiala, who vide order dated 2.8.1991 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court for disposal according to law.
(2.) THE relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that during consolidation proceedings in Rajinder Nagar, the consolidation department left 314 kanal 10 marlas land as per "Missal Hakiat" prepared by the consolidation Department as "Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Aranzi Hasab Rasad Rakba" and being the land owner in the said village has also a share in the total land measuring 314 Kanal 10 Marlas. The defendant-respondent filed a petition for re-partition of the land measuring 88 Kanals 18 marlas under Section 42 of the Act before the Director Consolidation of Holdings, who vide order dated 9.6.1987 decided the petition of the petitioner and remanded the case to Consolidation Officer, Mohali for defining the share of the right holders concerned only in the land measuring 88 kanals 18 marlas. The respondent impugned the order by way of declaratory suit on the ground that the order is illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and is also beyond the scope of the petition as no prayer was made to the Director for defining the share nor any such ground was taken in the petition by the petitioner. The impugned order was also challenged on the ground that the order of the Director is only with regard to the land measuring 88 Kanals 18 marla whereas the total land was 314 kanals 10 marlas. The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 42 of the Act before the Director in the year 1987 was barred by time whereas the consolidation in village Rajinder Nagar has taken place in the year 1959. The defendant contested the suit by way of filing written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- "1. Whether the impugned order dated 9.6.1987 is illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction, vague against the principles of natural justice on the grounds alleged in the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention Fragmentation) Act ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has locus-standi to file the present suit ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 6. What is the effect of dismissal of writ petition by the Hon'ble High Court on 23.7.87 as alleged in para 2 of the preliminary objections of the written statement ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for ? OPP 8. Relief." Issue No. 2 was treated as preliminary. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on issue No. 1, the trial Court held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter in the suit, in view of the provisions of Section 44 of the Act and as such the plaint of the suit was turned to the plaintiff for presenting before the appropriate authorities. The defendant filed the appeal before the District Judge, which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge who vide impugned order accepted the appeal and set aside the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 2 and held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the same and remanded back the case to the trial Court for disposal according to law.
(3.) THE defendant-petitioner being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Additional District Judge, preferred this revision.;