(1) THIS is an appeal by special leave by the plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a mortgage dated 4.6.23. The suit was filed on 28/12/1970. It is not in dispute that under the general law applicable to a suit for redemption, the claim before the civil court was within limitation, but limitation was pleaded by the defendant on a different ground. Before asking for redemption in the Civil court in 1970, the plaintiff had gone to the Authority prescribed under the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913, by making an application under S. 4 in 1968 and on 28/08/1968, the Collector under the Act rejected the same on accepting the defence plea that there was no mortgage. The defendant pleaded that the suit instituted beyond one year from the date of that order was barred in view of Article 100 of the Schedule of Limitation Act of 1963. The plaintiff failed when the plea of limitation was accepted and in these circumstances has moved his unsuccessful battle before this court.

(2) S. 9 and 12 of the Punjab read thus:"Sec.9 :"Procedure in contentious cases :If the mortgagee raises objection on any ground other than the amount of the deposit, or if the petitioner is not willing to pay the sum demanded by the mortgagee, the Collector may either (a) for reasons to be recorded dismiss the petition, or (b)make a summary enquiry regarding the objection raised by the mortgagee or regarding the sum due.

"SEC. 12:Any party aggrieved by an order made under S. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 of this Act may institute a suit to establish his. rights in respect of the mortgage; but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive."

(3) THE scheme of this statute is, therefore, clear to the extent that if an order made by the tribunal set up under this Act is not challenged within the period of limitation it assumes finality; otherwise stated, in the absence of a suit, in terms of Sec. 12 the right stands extinguished. In our view the High court was right in holding that the plaintiff not having filed his suit within the period under Art. 100 of the Limitation Act, the suit was barred by limitation and the order of the Collector having become conclusive, the right to sue for redemption was no more available. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs throughout.