A Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to control the proceedings in the Civil Court, even if he is presiding over the Civil Court under Section 117(2) of the Revenue Act. A Revenue Officer cannot dismiss a suit filed before him in pursuance of a direction given by him under Section 117(2) of the Revenue Act merely because it is filed beyond the time allowed for its institution by the Revenue Officer, if the suit is within time according to the law of limitation.

R.S.Narula, J.

1. Saudagar Singh and Dal Singh were two brothers. Dal Singhs widow Sham Kaur, respondent No. 1 in this appeal, filed an application for partition against Saudagar Singh before the Revenue Officer. The other respondents were impleaded as merely pro forma parties. While contesting the application for partition, Saudagar Singh raised a dispute about title, which could not admittedly be decided by the Revenue Officer as such. By order, dated June 23, 1959, the Revenue Officer directed the plaintiff to present a plaint within one month from that day before himself as a civil.--Court, and adjourned the partition proceedings to July 27, 1959 for further action. Though there was an appeal and a second appeal against the order of the Revenue Officer, the ultimate result was that by his order, dated, July 15, 1961, the Commissioner restored the Revenue Officers order referred to above afore than two months after the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner, Saudagar Singh presented a plaint before the Civil Court on September 25, 1961. By one line order, dated May 9, 1062, Mian Dalip Singh, Assistant Collector, Second Grade sitting as Subordinate Judge, Patti dismissed the suit as barred by time without discussing the matter at all. It is, however, not disputed by either of the parties before me that the suit was not dismissed as barred by the law of limitation but on the solitary ground that the plaint had been presented after the expiry of the time fixed by the Revenue Officers order, dated June 23, 1959. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the order of the Subordinate Judge, Patti, was passed under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (17 of 1887) (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue Act). Not satisfied with the order of the Subordinate Judge, Saudagar Singh went up in appeal under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 117 to the Court of the District Judge, Amritsar. The appeal was dismissed by the order of Shri Kartar Singh, Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated May 13, 1963 on the ground that though in case of a direction for filing a civil suit in an ordinary Civil Court, the suit cannot be dismissed as barred by time on account of exceeding the period fixed by the order of the Revenue Officer, different considerations prevail in a case where the Revenue Officer elects to decide the disputed question of title himself as a Civil Court under Section 117 (2) (b) of the Revenue Act. Reliance was also placed by the learned Additional District Judge on paragraph 18-9 of the Punjab Land Records Manual for upholding the order of the Subordinate Judge. During the pendency of this appeal, Saudhagar Singh died and his legal representatives have been brought on record in his place.

2. In thus second appeal, Mr. Y. P. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to fix the period of time within which the plaint of the title suit had to be presented to the Civil Court even though he had adopted the course permitted by Sub-section (2) of Section 117 of the Revenue Act, and the plaint had to be presented to his own Court. It is further submitted by Mr. Gandhi that even if there is no legal bar to a Revenue Officer fixing a time within which the plaint may be filed before himself as a Civil Court, the plaint cannot be rejected and the suit cannot be dismissed merely because it is filed or instituted after the expiry of the period so fixed by the Revenue Officer. The argument in brief is that even if the Officer happens to be the same, he cannot as a Revenue Officer control the proceedings in the Civil Court. Mr. Gandhi has firstly referred to the basic Full Bench judgment in Bachan Singh V/s. Madhan Singh, 61 Pun Re 1897. In that case a partition proceeding was decided by the Revenue Officer without awaiting the decision on a disputed question of title which had been raised before him