An order passed without notice is void and the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred. However, a suit challenging an order passed more than three years ago is barred by limitation. A re-auction conducted in violation of a status quo order is void.

H.S.Bedi, J.

1. Certain agricultural land belonging to the Rehabilitation department which was in the possession of the appellant was put to auction and he being the highest bidder for Rs. 4,200/-was declared successful and in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act) paid Rs. 900/- at the spot as earnest money. It appears that the private respondent, thereafter, filed an application before the Sales Commissioner that he was entitled to purchase the suit land as it was contiguous to his present holdings. The Sales Commissioner vide his order dated 30.9.1976 Ex.D1, accepted the objections and ordered that the land be re-sold by public auction. In pursuance thereto, the land was infact re-auctioned on 21.10.1982 and this time the successful bidder being the private respondent. Aggrieved by the sale made in favour of the private respondent, the plaintiff filed a civil suit which was numbered as case No. 288-1 dated 19-10-1982. The case was taken up on 20.10.1982 before the learned Sub Judge I Class, Zira and he ordered that notice be given on process fee for 21.10.1982 on the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. praying for the grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant/respondent No.2 i.e. Tehsildar Sales, Zira from putting the suit land to re-auction. On 21.10.1982, it appears that the Tehsildar Sales, Zira was served and he put in appearance and the following order was passed :-

" Tehsildar sales, Zira in person who wants to go through the file of this case before filing reply to the application. Put up on 3.11.1982. Till then, status quo shall be maintained."

Suit No. 288-1 was thereafter withdrawn by the appellant on 24.1.1984 and the present suit filed shortly thereafter. It is the case of the appellant that despite the status - quo order granted, the land was put to auction by the Tehsildar Sales on that very day and was purchased by the private respondent. The case of the appellant further is that the order dated 30.9.1976 (Ex.D-1) and the re-auction dated 21.10.1982 were liable to be quashed in these proceedings as they were void in view of the fact that no notice has been given to the appellant prior to the passing of the Order Ex.P1. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was contested and it was averred that the proper remedy for the appellant was to file appeal of revision before the authorities under the Act. The objection were accepted by the Courts below and the suit dismissed. Hence this appeal.

2 Mr. Aftab Singh Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the findings of the Courts below on the question of jurisdiction were wrong as the Order Ex.D1 dated 30.9.1976 was void in as much as it has been passed without issuing any notice to the appellant. He has urged on these facts that an order being contrary to the principles of natural justice or passed in violation of the provisions of statute was void, the jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred as has been held in Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta and Bros, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1558 and Ranga Singh v. Gurbux Singh, A.I.R. 1961 Punjab 166. It is clear that the basic arguments of Mr. Bakshi, flow from the premise that the Order Ex.P1 was passed without notice. I have examined the pleadings on the point and find from the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents that before the aforesaid order was passed, a notice was served on 1.12.1975 and 13.5.1976 on the appellant. Mr. Bakshi has, however, relied on Rule 17 of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 that the notice was required to be served in a particular manner and if that was not done, an inference could be drawn that it had not been served. I need not go into this aspect as a point that clearly comes to mind is that by resorting to a challenge to the order of 21.10.1982, the petitioner c