G.C.GARG, J. - (1.) KATU Ram alias Chhotu Ram, respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption of land as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint on the ground that he was a co-sharer. The suit was resisted by the defendant-petitioner. No plea of partition was taken in the written statement though admittedly during the pendency of the suit revenue authorities have ordered partition of the joint khewat. During the evidence this fact came to the notice of the plaintiff. It was at that stage, plaintiff moved an application seeking permission to amend the plaint to challenge the partition proceedings. The application was opposed by the defendant-vendee. The trial Court by its order dated May 21, 1993 allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint. Defendant of course, was permitted to file written statement to the amended plaint with liberty to raise all pleas that may be available to him. This is how the defendant-vendee has filed this revision petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order of partition to which the plaintiff was a party, could not be challenged before the civil court and in fact the jurisdiction of the civil court was specifically barred in view of the provisions of Sections 158 (1) and 158 (2) (xvii and xvii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act' ). In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon Shri Ominder Hari Darshan Singh v. The Punjab State and Ors. , 1982 P. L. J. 272. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the case in hand is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Risal Singh of Karnal v. Lal Singh and Anr. , 1992 H. R. R. 538. Learned counsel for the parties have also taken me through the application seeking amendment of the plaint and the reply filed thereto. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision deserves to succeed. In order to understand the controversy raised between the parties, it is necessary to notice the provisions of Sections 158 (1) and 158 (2) (xvii) and (xviii) of the Act which read as under : "158. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers- Except as otherwise provided by this Act : (1) A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter which the State Government or a Revenue Officer is empowered by this Act to dispose of or take cognizance of the matter in which the State Government or any Revenue Officer exercises any power vested in it or him by or under this Act and in particular: (2) A Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely : (xvii) any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or any question connected with, or arising out of proceedings for partitions, not being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought; (xviii) any question as to the allotment of land on the partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or as to the distribution of land subject by established custom to periodical redistribution or as to the distribution of land revenue on the partition of an estate or holding or on a periodical redistribution of land, or as to the distribution of rent on the partition of a tenancy. " A reading of the above provisions goes to show that the order of the revenue authorities cannot be challenged in the civil court. In other words, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred, on all the matters which can be raised before the revenue authorities. I have gone through the application seeking amendment of the plaint. After considering the matter, I am of the view that the order of the revenue authorities ordering partition is sought to be challenged on the grounds which were available to the respondents herein to be raised before the revenue authorities. In none of the grounds taken in the application seeking amendment of plaint, it was stated that the order was void or without jurisdiction. If an order passed by a revenue officer is alleged to be without jurisdiction, civil court will obviously have the jurisdiction but it is not so in the case in hand. Support for this view can be had from Ominder Hari Darshan Singh's case (Supra ). This Court while allowing amendment of pleadings clearly noticed that order of partition was challenged, apart from being illegal, as null and void and thus, a nullity. Such an order would mean an order without jurisdiction and for setting aside such order, the civil court will have the jurisdiction because the grounds taken was that the order was without jurisdiction. This, however, is not the situation in the case in hand. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was a party to the proceedings before the revenue court. He has already filed appeal which is stated to be pending. Nothing could be brought out from the reading of the application seeking amendment that the order was challenged on a ground that the order of revenue authorities was without jurisdiction. Thus, having regard to the provisions of Sections 158 (1) and 158 (2) (xvii) and (xviii) of the Act as noticed above, I am of the opinion that jurisdiction of the civil court is totally taken away in cases where order is challenged on the ground other than lack of jurisdiction. During the course of arguments, I called upon learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to show that the order was without jurisdiction, but he was unable to bring to me notice any fact to show that it was without jurisdiction. Faced with the situation, I am clearly of the opinion that the trial court erred in allowing the application seeking amendment of the plaint.
(3.) FOR what has been noticed above, the revision is allowed, order under revision is set aside and the application seeking amendment of the plaint is dismissed. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear in the trial court on 20. 12. 94 for further proceedings. No costs.;