JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the civil suit was barred by the provisions of Section 158(2) (xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, inasmuch as, the challenge was to the partition proceedings. It is further submitted that the said objection was specifically taken in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and has been perversely dealt with by the trial Court and the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed and the plaint deserves to be rejected.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the paper-book and finds that the impugned order has been rightly passed and the present revision petition, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

4. It is not in dispute that in the civil suit, the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 7 have challenged the partition proceedings primarily on the ground that the same are in violation of the principles of natural justice and the proceedings have been carried out behind their back without affording any opportunity to the respondents No.1 to 7/plaintiffs of being heard and that they were wrongly proceeded against ex parte. It is further specifically averred in the plaint that the basic principles of natural justice have been ignored by the revenue authorities in finalizing the partition proceedings. On the aspect of there being violation of principles of natural justice and no due service, it has been averred that the plaintiffs were not properly served with the summons either through the ordinary process, registered cover or otherwise and even no Mustri Munadi had been effected in the village, rather a false report regarding the Mustri had been prepared. It was specifically stated in paragraph 6 of the plaint that it was only a few days prior to the date of the suit that plaintiffs learnt about the said partition proceedings, when the present petitioners made efforts to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.

5. The application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the trial Court after observing that when a challenge is made to the partition proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, then, the same cannot be stated to be hit by the provisions of Section 158(2)(xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act as the question as to whether the plaintiffs were duly served or the entire proceedings were in violation of the principles of natural justice is a question which can be considered by the Civil Court.

6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 19.07.2023 passed in Civil Revision No.6186 of 2018 titled as 'Joginder Singh Vs. Pritam Singh and others', in similar circumstances, wherein challenge was made to the partition proceeding and an objection was raised with respect to it being barred under Section 158(2) (xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, it had been observed that when there is violation of the principles of natural justice, then the same is one of the grounds on which the Civil Court can exercise its jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: -

'xxx xxx xxx xxx

3. The petitioner-defendant in the suit claims that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 158(2) XVIII of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the '1887 Act'). It is submitted that an order of partition of the property passed by the competent authority is sought to be challenged by filing the civil suit, is no