V.M. Jain, J.—This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs/ appellants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by one of the plaintiffs, namely Ishwar Dass was dismissed by the learned District Judge.

2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants with the allegations that the plaintiffs and the defendants were joint owners in possession of the suit land and the orders dated 2.6.1987, 21.2.1989 and 8.11.1989 passed by the Assistant Collector, Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, respectively, were illegal and without jurisdiction and the same would have no effect over the right, title or Interest of the plaintiffs and that the defendants be restrained from getting possession of the suit land as per the order of partition and in the alternative, the plaintiffs sought joint possession over the suit land. It was alleged that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by the parties and that the defendants had filed an application for partition before the Assistant Collector and in the partition proceedings, the plaintiffs were proceeded against ex parte and an ex parte order of partition was passed by the Assistant Collector, which was upheld in appeal by the Collector and the Commissioner. It was alleged that the Assistant Collector had passed the order of partition without following and complying with the mode of partition. In the written statement, the defendants took up the plea that the suit land had been partitioned at the spot as per the mode of partition and the order passed by the Assistant Collector, which was stated to be legal and valid and similar was the position in respect of the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner.

3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that the suit land had been partitioned between the parties and that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Collector and the Commissioner were perfectly legal and valid. The appeal filed by one of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned District Judge, upholding the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, both the plaintiffs have filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court.

4. After hearing the learned Counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. The only ground taken before me by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants is that the plaintiffs/appellants had not been served in the partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector in accordance with law, inasmuch as the provisions of Order 5 C.P.C. had not been complied with and that the Assistant Collector had illegally proceeded ex parte against the plaintiffs/appellants in the partition proceedings. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants. As referred to above, the partition proceedings were pending before the Assistant Collector and not before a Civil Court. The provisions of Order 5C.P.C. would have no application to the partition proceedings which were pending before the Assistant Collector. On the other hand, the provisions of Section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 would apply to the partition proceedings which were pending before the Assistant Collector. Section 21 of the said Act reads as under:— "21. Mode of service of summons.—(1) A summons issued by a Revenue Officer, shall if practicable, be served (a) personally on the person to whom it is addressed or failing him (b) his recognised agent (2) If service cannot be so made, or if acceptance of service so made is refused, the summons may be served by posting a copy thereof at the usual or last known place of residence of the person to whom it is addressed, or if that perso