JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By this judgment, RSA Nos. 1405 and 1406 of 2008 arising from a common judgment passed by learned Trial Court and First Appellate Court shall stand disposed of. Learned counsel for the partieshave also agreed that both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. In the considered view of this Court, following question of law arise for determination :-

"1. Whether an ex parte judgment and decree passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties can be ignored by the Court?

2. Whether a civil suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the civil court does not have jurisdiction in view of bar provided under Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, even after finding the tribunal of limited jurisdiction, has failed to follow the mandatory procedure laid down in the statute itself?"

2. The plaintiffs have filed these two appeals against judgment dated 10.12.2007 passed by learned First Appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.2.2003 passed by learned Trial Court.

3. Facts:-

4. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration claiming that they are owners in possession of the suit land alongwith performa defendants no. 10 to 21 to the extent of 3/5 th share of the suit land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint and the allotment in the case nos. 59 and 60 decided on 22.12.1977 by Collector Agrarian, Nuh and consequent mutations no. 596, 597, 600, 607, 610, 611, 617, 661, 662 and sale deeds dated 23.6.1998, 20.7.1998, 13.7.1998, 17.7.1998 and 5.7.1996 are wrong, illegal, null void ab initio, ineffective and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and defendants no. 10 to 21 and the same are liable to be set aside in view of judgment and decree dated 29.5.1985 in civil suit no. 252 decided by Sub Judge, First Class, Gurgaon with a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants no.3 to 9(c) from interfering in the peaceful ownership and cultivating possession of the plaintiffs and performa defendants detailed in para 1 of the plaint and also from alienating the suit property.

5. Facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeals are that Kundan and Ramji Lal sons of Chhittar had mortgaged certain property, including the suit land, approximately 100 years before the filing of the suit. 2/5 th share out of total mortgaged land was got redeemed by the owners in the years 1964 and 1968. The revenue record was accordingly updated vide mutation No. 293.

6. The State Government notified Haryana Ceiling of Land holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1972'). As per the aforesaid Act, land owners were required to submit a declaration, if their land holding is more than permissible area, within the time prescribed. Kundan and Ramji Lal were owners of the land more than permissible area. Therefore, they filed declarations, as required under Section 9 of the Act of 1972, before the Collector, Agrarian. Pursuant to the aforesaid declaration, land measuring 66 kanals 1 marla in the hands of Ramji Lal son of Chhittar and land measuring 73 kanals 1 marlas in the hands of Kundan s/o Chhittar was declared, o being found to be beyond the ceiling (hereinafter referred to as surplus land). Pursuant to the aforesaid declaration of the land as surplus land, proceedings for allotment of the land to the eligible persons were initiated and allotment scame to be made in favour of defendants No. 3 to 8 in the year 1979. It is apparent that pursuant to the allotment made, the allottees have already sold substantive part of the land through sale deeds Ex..D2, D3, D4, D5, D6 in favour of defendants No. 9 (a) to 9(c ) in the year 1998.

7. Plaintiffs (herein) filed a civil suit no. 252 of 1983 on 25.5.1983 by impleading original owners (Kundan and Ramji Lai) as well as defendants no. 3 to 8 (in the present suit) as defendants. In the aforesaid suit, it was claimed that plaintiffs and defendants no. 9 to