R.S.Narula, J. - (1.) THIS is a Defendants' petition for revision of the order of the Court of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ferozepore, dated April 5, 1975, deciding a preliminary issue against them and in favour of the Plaintiff Respondents.
(2.) THE Preliminary issue was: Whether the Civil Court is competent to determine the question of surplus of land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Reforms Act? This issue arose out of a plea raised by the defendants in a suit for redemption filed against them to the effect that redemption should not be allowed because on redeeming the land in possession of the Defendant Petitioners, the Plaintiff Respondents would be possessed of land in excess of their permissible area, i. e., beyond the ceiling laid down by the relevant law. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that in deciding whether the Plaintiffs have surplus area or not, he will be usurping the functions of the authorities under the Land Reforms Act, 1973. Be that as it may, the trial Court has clearly held that if this question arises at all, it would have to be determined at the stage of execution of the decree and not at the stage of the trial of the suit, This finding is in accordance with the law already settled by the High Court. The principle involved in the matter has already been settled in same pre -emption cases where it has been held that a decree for preemption should be passed if the claim of the Plaintiff -pre -emptor is proved notwithstanding the fact that on pre -empting the sale the Plaintiff would be possessed of surplus land beyond his permissible area as such a question can arise only if and after a decree is passed and the preemption money is deposited by the Plaintiff. Same principle applies to the instant case. It is only after a decree for redemption is passed and the mortgage amount is deposited by the Plaintiff in full that the question of determining whether the Plaintiff mortgager is or is not entitled to execute the decree can arise. Even if he has the maximum land permissible under the law at the moment, he would be at liberty to sell away part of his existing holding before executing the decree and thus avoid being deprived of the fruits of the decree. A suit for redemption cannot be dismissed on the ground covered by the additional issue No. 1 (which has been decided by the order under revision) at the trial stage. It is significant that in this particular case, the Defendant -Petitioners have raised various objections to the passing of the decree for redemption against them including an objection about limitation. In the circumstances referred to above, I am unable to held that the trial Court has in any way exceeded its jurisdiction or declined the same to exercise it with any illegality or irregularity. There is nothing in this petition for revision and the same must fail. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.;