Revenue Officers under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 have inherent powers to restore possession to tenants after setting aside ex parte orders of ejectment, and such orders cannot be challenged in a Civil Court due to the bar under Section 25 of the Act.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jullundur, dated July 11, 1961 by which he reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. The facts which have led to this litigation are that Mst. Swaran Lata defendant No. 3 was the owner of the property in dispute and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were the tenants under her. Defendant No. 3 filed proceedings for recovery of rent and the eviction of the defendants 1 and 2 under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenures Act) from the land in dispute and obtained an ex parte order of ejectment against them. They put in an application for setting aside the ex parte order before the Assistant Collector, who passed the order of ejectment, but he rejected the said application. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal against the said order before the Collector which was accepted by him and he remanded the case for trying the same on merits. Before the hearing of the appeal defendant No. 3 had taken possession of the land in dispute from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore, it was also ordered by the Collector that they should be restored the possession of the property in dispute. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 put in an application for restoration of possession before the Assistant Collector, but the same was dismissed by him. They filed an appeal against that order to the Collector, who accepted it and directed that the possession should be delivered to them. After the passing of the said order Swarn Lata sold the property in dispute to the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 and the plaintiffs instituted the present suit for declaration that they and the defendant No. 4 were the owners of the land in dispute and the order of the Collector directing the restoration of possession to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was illegal, without jurisdiction and they had no right to take possession in pursuance of that order. They also prayed that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 be injuncted from taking possession of the land in dispute in pursuance of the illegal order of the Collector. The suit was resisted by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who denied the allegations of the plaintiffs submitted that the order passed by the Collector was legal and they were entitled to the possession of the property on the basis of that order. They also stated that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-

-

1. Are the defendants occupancy tenant or tenants at will of the land in dispute?

2. Had the Civil Court no jurisdiction to try the suit?

3. Are the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 owners of the land in dispute?

4. Relief.

3. The trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 against the defendants and issue No. 3 in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed their suit. On appeal, the district Judge upheld the findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 1 and 3, but reversed its finding on issue No. 2 and accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the appeal, Ram Chand died and respondents 2 to 8, his widow Tejo and children were impleaded as parties. The plaintiffs having felt aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, have come up in appeal to this Court.

4. The only submission which was made by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the order of the Collector for restoration of the possession passed under the Act was without jurisdiction as according to him he had no power to order restoration of the possession to Mangal Singh and Ram Chander, who had already been ejected. He further admitted that Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code) did not apply to the proceedings before the Revenue Officers under the Act and they could only get the possession back by institution of the suit under Se