The Civil Court's jurisdiction cannot be ousted if the statutory authorities have exercised jurisdiction in a wrong manner or failed to comply with the prescribed procedure under the Act. A simple suit for correction does not lie without exhausting remedies under the consolidation/revenue Acts.

DEV DARSHAN SUD, J.-

1. THIS appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of learned Appellate Court, partly reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff restraining the defendant from causing any interference in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendant over the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 43 min Khatauni No. 50 min, Khasra No. 162 measuring 0-09-52 hectares situated in village Harlyan Illaqua Hatli, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi. The learned trial Court further restrained the defendant from raising any construction on the suit land by extending other boundary marks affixed. The revenue authorities were also directed to carry out the necessary corrections in accordance with the settlement musabi by incorporating the correct karukans of Khasra No. 162.

2. THE defendant appealed. The learned District Judge reconsidered and re-appreciated the entire facts and evidence on record. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for mandatory injunction with respect to the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 162, measuring 0-09-52 hectare situated in village Harlyan which was earlier recorded in the ownership and possession of Shri Sukh Ram, father of the plaintiff and now inherited by the plaintiff and proforma defendant in equal shares. It was pleaded that adjoining to the suit land, land comprised in Khasra No. 161, measuring 0-01-84 hectare is recorded in the ownership of the defendant and his brother deceased Hari Singh. Consolidation proceedings were concluded in the year 1984-85 and the defendant applied for demarcation of these two Khasra Nos. 161 and 162, which was carried out by the field agency when the plaintiff's area was reduced by one metre in width and 29 metres in length. This demarcation was not accepted nor any report was submitted by the Kanungo. The case pleaded was that taking undue advantage of wrong demarcation, the defendant- respondent wanted to raise construction on the land belonging to the plaintiff for which a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction and decree of mandatory injunction, in case any construction was raised, was prayed for.

Preliminary objections were taken up with regard to jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit, maintainability and cause of action etc. Seven issues were settled and on the decided issues, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The learned Appellate Court referred to the documentary evidence on record, which is Ext.PA a copy of Misal Hakiat for the year 1984-85 showing the ownership and possession of Sukh Ram, father of the plaintiff, over the suit land, Ext.PF the copy of Misal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid with regard to a part of the land comprised in Khasra No. 472 and other Khasra numbers, carved out from this Khasra number, Ext.PB copy of Misal Haqiat and Ext.DB copy of jamabandi for the year 1990-91, Ext.DE copy of jamabandi for the year 1984-85, Ext.DF copy of jamabandi for the year 1995-96 with respect to Khasra No. 161 owned and possessed by Nanku and Hari Singh in equal shares who are the defendant and his brother, Ext.DD copy of Bandobast Jadid with respect to Khasra No. 161 (earlier Khasra No. 464), Ext.PC copy of Aks tatima, Ext.PD copy of report of Patwari which shows that boundaries of Khasra No. 162 were not properly fixed at the time of demarcation, Ext.PE copy of order sheet of the Assistant Commissioner II Grade which the learned Court held to be not relevant.

3. ON the oral evidence, the learned Appellate Court concluded that the suit was rightly filed for permanent prohibitory injunction and for mandatory injunction in case the defendant succeeded in carrying out construction over Khasra No. 162, owned by the plaintiff or the boundary of Khasra Nos. 161 and 162. The Court then proceeds that to prove that construction has been raised by the defendant over the land owne