The main legal point established is the interpretation of the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure in proceedings under the Punjab Tenancy Act and the right of appeal in the Court of Commissioner under Section 80 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

I.S. Bindra, FC - This is a revision petition under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act against the order dated 15-2-2000 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur.

2. Just to appreciate the issues involved in this case, the brief facts of the case are that the respondents Malkiat Singh and others i.e. present respondents No. 1 to 6 filed a suit under Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 for declaration that they were occupancy tenants and subsequently have become full fledged owners in respect of the suit land measuring 141 Kanals 8 Marlas according to the shares as Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 situated in the Revenue Estate of village Manochahal subject to the adjustment of land alienated. Notice of service in respect of the said suit was issued and on the basis of report of service of notice on Smt. Dhan Kaur the present petitioner, the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte as the petitioner failed to put in appearance. After recording ex-parte evidence Assistant Collector-I Grade, Zira accepted the suit filled by Malkiat Singh and others and decreed their suit vide his orders dated 11-12-1992.

3. The petitioner Dhan Kaur filed an application for setting aside the ex- parte order in the year 1999 after the lapse of over six years alleging that no proper service of summons have been effected on her and that, therefore, ex-parte order dated 11-12-1992 be set aside. The application filed by Dhan Kaur was dismissed by the Assistant Collector-I Grade, Zira vide his order dated 21-6-1999 after holding that the applicant Dhan Kaur had been duly served through her son and she was very well aware of the proceedings and order dated 11-12-1992.

4. Aggrieved with the order dated 21-6-1999 of Assistant Collector-I Grade, Zira, Dhan Kaur went in an appeal before the Collector, Ferozepur who accepted the same and set aside the ex-parte order dated 11-12-1992 and 21-6-1999 and remanded the case to Assistant Collector-I Grade, Zira for fresh trial vide his order dated 11-11-1999.

5. Dissatisfied with the order dated 11-11-1999 of Collector Ferozepur, the respondents Malkiat Singh and others filed an appeal against the said remand order in the court of Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Alongwith the appeal Malkiat Singh and others also filed an application for staying the order of Collector.

6. While admitting the appeal for regular hearing on 15-2-2000, the Commissioner also stayed operation of the order impugned in the appeal. Now the present petition is against this in terlocutory order dated 15-2-2000 that the legal representatives of Smt. Dhan Kaur have filed before this court contending inter alia that no appeal lies in the court of Commissioner against the remand order passed by the Collector whereby the ex-parte order dated 11- 12-1992 has been set aside. It was further alleged that the appeal filed in the court of Commissioner was time barred and that the Learned Commissioner has not noticed the law cited by the counsel for the present petitioners, at the bar.

7. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

8. Arguing for the petitioners, Sh. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate has contended that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings under the Punjab Tenancy Act and as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal lies against an order accepting an application for setting aside an ex-parte decree. The Learned Collector had accepted the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 no appeal lies against the order passed by the Collector. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel has drawn my attention to a ruling of the court of Financial Commissioner reported as 1932 LLT page 120. The Learned Counsel has further contended that the appeal filed by the respondents in the court of Commissio