The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred in a suit for injunction to restrain obstruction of a thoroughfare, even if the land in question is Shamilat Deh, as the suit is not a suit relating to Shamilat Deh.

I.S.TIWANA, J.

1. The short but question of some complexity raised in this Second Appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the Court. It arises on the following facts.

2. Plaintiff-respondent Ram Sarup filed the present suit on 18th July, 1978 with the allegations that out of the two plots Nos. 208 and 212 situated in village Dhadoli, Tehsil Safidon, district Jind, the first one is owned by him and the latter is a public street. He and the pro forma defendants in the suit were utilising this street as an approach to their houses for the last more than 30 years. The defendant-appellants being headstrong people not only threatened to dispossess him from plot No. 208 but had actually constructed a 6 high wall in the thoroughfare, i.e. on plot No. 212, and, thus, caused obstruction in the free passage to his house and also to the houses of other defendants. Thus, he sought a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from raising any construction or interference in his possession over plot No. 208 and prayed for a mandatory injunction directing these appellants to demolish the wall and the other construction and to restore the thoroughfare to its original position. The appellants contested the suit denying the above-mentioned allegations. The parties were put to trial on the following issues :-

(1) Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed plot No. 208? OPP.

(2) Whether this plot No. 212 has been used by the plaintiff for the last more than 30 years as street? OPP.

(3) Whether defendants have blocked the street No. 212 prior to filing the suit dt. 1-7-1978? OPP.

(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

(5) Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD.

(6) Relief.

Having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of plot No. 208 and that plot No. 212 was a thoroughfare and was being used as a passage by the plaintiff for more than 30 years and the defendant-appellants had actually blocked the same by raising the construction in question, the reliefs prayed for were granted. Under issues Nos. 4 and 5 it was held that the suit was maintainable in the present form and the plaintiff had the locus standi to file the same. In appeal, though the above-noted findings of the trial Court have been affirmed by the District Judge, Jind, yet one of the contentions raised before him and repeated before us is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it involved the determination of the question whether the land forming part of plot No. 212 being a thoroughfare did vest or not in the Panchayat. This, according to their learned counsel, could not be done by the said Court in view of the provisions of Sec.13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) as in force on the date of filing of the suit and as now substituted by Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981 with effect from Feb. 12, 1981. The earlier section reads as follows :-

"13. Bar of jurisdiction - No civil Court shall have jurisdiction - (a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question as to whether any land or other immovable property or any right or interest in such land or other immovable property vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under this Act; or

(b) in respect of any other matter which any officer is empowered by or under this Act to determine; or

(c) to question the legality of any action or any matter decided by any authority empowered to do so under this Act."

This section along with Ss.13-A and 13-B was later substituted by the present section during the pendency of this appeal This, however, to our mind does not make any material difference to the fate of this case as the learned counsel for the parties, are agreed that the bar of jurisdiction brought in by the Haryana Amending Act No. 2 of 1981 applies to pending appeals even. The newly substituted section reads as follows :-

"13 Bar of jurisdiction. - No civil Court shall have juris