- (1.) This is a second appeal from the appellate order of S. Haqiqat Singh, Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. The facts briefly stated are as follows:
(2.) On the death of one Sundar Singh who held certain land as an occupancy tenant the Plaintiffs brought a suit for possession of the land on the ground that they were Sundar Singh's reversioners. The suit was resisted by the defendants who are the landlords. They denied that the Plaintiffs were the reversionary heirs of the deceased occupancy tenant or that they had any right to succeed to the land left by him. The trial Sub-Judge framed the following issue: , Are the Plaintiffs reversionary heirs of late issueless Sunder and are entitled to get his 'Tarka' (i.e. entitled to inheritance) and the mutation in dispute does not affect their rights The finding of the trial Sub-Judge was that the Plaintiffs had not been able to prove their relationship with Sundar. He further held that even if the Plaintiffs were the reversionary heirs of Sundar, since it was neither alleged by them nor proved that the land was occupied by the common ancestor they had no right to inherit it in preference to the landlords. Accordingly the plain-tiffs' suit was dismissed with costs. Against this decree the Plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the Additional District Judge. The; learned Additional District Judge considered that in order to succeed in the case it was the Plaintiffs' duty to allege and prove that the land was occupied by the common ancestor from whom they and Sundar deceased had descended and since they had not done so he remanded the case to the trial Court with the direction that if the Plaintiffs paid Rs. 100/- as costs to the other side the trial Court should allow them to amend the plaint and after framing the necessary issue and giving the parties an opportunity of adducing evidence thereon decide the case de novo. The concluding words of the order of the Additional District Judge are as follows: In case the above mentioned costs are not paid before or on 29th Sawan 2006, this appeal shall stand rejected as there seems no evidence on the file to prove that the common ancestor of Sundar and the Plaintiffs occupied the land. The costs were ultimately paid by the Plaintiffs and were accepted by the defendants' counsel under protest. The defendants are the Appellants before me.
(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents' counsel that the remand order made by the Additional District Judge is under Section 151, Civil P.C. and consequently no appeal, is competent. Taking into consideration the nature of the remand order I am inclined to think that the objection is well-founded and at the request of the Appellants' counsel I treat the appeal as a revision petition.;