- (1.) The plaintiffs are in appeal. They have challenged the order dated October 14, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar whereby on an appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside and the case has been remanded back to the trial Court for a fresh decision of the controversy.
(2.) It appears from the record that a suit for separate possession and partition was filed by the plaintiffs with regard to the suit property. The defendants had contested the aforesaid suit. They had challenged the title of the plaintiffs to claim partition and separate possession.
(3.) The learned trial Court held that since the property in question was agricultural land and therefore, only the revenue authorities had exclusive jurisdiction to partition the property in question. In these circumstances, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs in view of the provisions of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.;