The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the partition ordered by a Revenue Officer under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and that the concerned party must exhaust the remedies available under the Act before approaching the Civil Court.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

1. The vendee-plaintiffs have filed this appeal to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby their suit and the appeal against the partition of the land ordered by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Guhla, vide order dated 16.7.1975, were dismissed.

2. In brief the facts giving rise to this appeal are that defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed an application for partition of the suit land against Smt.Kirpal Kaur (Plaintiff No. 1) and defendant Nos. 6 to 15 in the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Guhla. In that application Smt. Kirpal Kaur was proceeded against ex parte. The partition was confirmed on 16.6.1975 and the case was fixed for instrument of partition for 16.7.1975. Rai Jasbir Singh, plaintiff No. 2 purchased land measuring 80 Kanals from Smt. Kirpal Kaur (plaintiff No. 1) vide sale deed dated 27.5.1975 during the pendency of the partition proceedings and plaintiff No. 2 and 3, i.e., Rai Jasbir Singh and Swaran Singh were in actual physical possession of 228 Kanals 8 Marias and 77 Kanals 8 Marias, respectively. The plaintiffs challenged the order dated 16.7.1975 passed by the Assistant Grade, 1st Class, Guhla, by filing the present suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.1980 on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiffs then filed appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 29.1.1980 passed by the trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Smt. Kirpal Kaur withdrew herself from being the appellant. Consequently, vide order dated 17.1.1980 the appeal qua Kirpal Kaur was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. The appeal qua the remaining two appellants, i.e., Rai Jasbir Singh and Swaran Singh (present appellants) was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.1981 and the decision of the trial Court with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was upheld. Now Rai Jasbir Singh arid Swaran Singh have filed the present appeal wherein challenge has been made to the findings of both the Courts below.

3. It has been contended by Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants, that Smt. Kirpal Kaur was not duly served and, thus,the ex parte order dated 16.6.1975/16.7.1975 passed by the Assistant Collector,1st Grade, Guhla, was a nullity. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Courts below erred in holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit against partition ordered by the Revenue Officer in view of the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short the Act), despite the fact that the order for partition of the suit land was passed ex parte without serving Smt.Kirpal Kaur according to the prescribed legal procedure.

4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have been controverted by Mr. M.L.Sarin, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents. It has been contended by him that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the validity of the partition proceedings. The appellants have approached the Civil Court without exhausting the remedy available to them under Section 13 of the Act. It has further been contended by him that Smt. Kirpal Kaur had duly been served in the partition proceedings by sending notice to her by registered post.The counsel has also contended that she had withdrawn her appeal before the lower appellate court and in this view of the matter, the present appellants, who had purchased the land from her during the pendency of the partition proceedings, had no locus standi to challenge the order of partition passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade.

5. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence adduced on record.

6. The only question that arises for consideration in the present app