An order passed after the death of a big land-owner, utilizing his surplus area, is not an order under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and therefore, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to question the validity of such an order is not excluded under Section 25 of the Act.

R.S.NARULA, J.

1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are not in dispute. Bihari Lal was a big land-owner. His surplus area was determined and declared under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), on 28.01.1960. In December that year Bihari Lal died. More than 2 1/2 years later, the area which was surplus in the hands of Bihari Lal was allotted to the tenants who are now respondents before us. Possession of the allotted area was also given to the tenants. On 30.10.1969, Kul Bhushan and others (the sons and widow of Bihari Lal), heirs of Bihari Lal filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute on the ground that there was no surplus land in the hands of the plaintiff-appellants who had become small land-owners after the death of Bihari Lal and before the utilisation of the land, and, therefore, they had been illegally dispossessed of the land which order could not be Justified under the Act. The suit was contested by the tenant-respondents on various grounds which led to the framing of as many as ten issues which are reproduced below:-

"1. When Bihari Lal died?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are his heirs?

3. Whether the plaintiffs were small land-owners on or before the death of Bihari Lal?

4. Whether the suit land had been utilised in the lifetime of Bihari Lal?

5. If issue No. 4 is not proved and issues Nos. 2 and 3 are proved, whether it could be utilised after his death?

6. Whether the utilisation of land in favour of defendants Nos. 4 to 7 is illegal and void for reasons mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of the plaint?

7. Whether the notice u/s. 80, Civil Procedure Code, was illegal ?

8. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit?

9. Whether the suit is barred by time ?

10. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action and multifariousness ?"

The findings recorded on the above-quoted issues by the trial Court in its judgment, dated November 30, 1970, were that Bihari Lal had died in December, 1960, that the plaintiffs were his heirs, that the plaintiffs were small land-owners after the death of Bihari Lal, that the suit land had not been utilised in the lifetime of Bihari Lal, and that the same could not be utilised under the Act after his death. It was, therefore, held that the utilisation of the land in favour of defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 7 was void, and that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. It was further found that the suit was not bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of action, but the suit was dismissed on account of the finding on issue No. 9 to the effect that it was barred by time. The suit was held to be beyond time under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the new Act). The unsuccessful plaintiffs appeal was allowed by the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri R.L. Garg, Addition District Judge, Gurgaon, dated February 14, 1973. The learned Additional District Judge applied Article 65 of the Schedule to the new Act to the case for reversing the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 9. All other findings of the trial Court were affirmed. The result of the decree passed by the first appellate Court was that it was the defendant-tenants turn to go up in Regular Second Appeal No. 442 of 1973. That appeal was allowed by the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated October 24, 1973. The decision of the learned single Judge has led to the filing of this Letters Patent Appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. The learned Judge has held that the suit was barred under Section 25 of the Act and was also barred by time under Article 100 of the new Act.

2. In this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the said judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers it has been contended by Mr. Pitam Singh Jain that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is excluded by Sec. 25 of the Act for trying only such suits wherein the validity of any proceeding or