JUDGMENT

Almond, J C - Amir Gul and three others sued Dost Mohd. and one other for a declaration that they were the sole owners and in possession of 17 kls. 7 mls of land. Dost Mohd. resisted the suit on the ground that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain it. He pleaded that on 11th "June 1940, when proceedings for partition between him and the plaintiffs were pending in the Court of the Revenue Officer, the question of title to this land had arisen and the Revenue Officer had directed the plaintiffs in the present case to bring a suit in his Court to establish their title within a period of one month; that they had failed to do so and therefore the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial Judge accepted this contention relying on a case of this Court reported in Abdullah Said Mohd v. Arbad Taj Mohd Khan A.I.R. 1942 Pesh. 16. An authority of the Lahore High Court reported in Sukhdeo Singh v. Mathra Singh A.I.R. 1933 Lah. 412 was cited before him to the contrary, but he held that he must follow, the authority of this Court. He, therefore, returned the plaint to the plaintiffs with a direction that it should be presented in the proper Court. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court, where the same two cases were again, cited and an Additional Judge dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs have presented an application for revision to this Court and in. view of the conflict of views the case was referred to a Bench.

2. We may state before discussing the legal point that learned Counsel for the petitioners has stated before us that since the order of the Revenue Officer was passed in 1940 the land in suit has actually been partitioned, but the records which have been sent up with the revision application do not disclose this fact. In fact no revenue proceedings have been sent up except those in which the Revenue Officer made the order referred to, which, proceedings were consigned to the record room on 17th June 1940 without any further action being taken.

3. The Judge who decided the case of this Court relied upon an earlier judgment of the Punjab Chief Court reported in Ghulam Mohd v. Mohd Mansur Jan (02) 146 P.L.R. 1902. At the hearing of the case an attempt was made to distinguish the two cases, but it was held that the two cases could not be distinguished. No other relevant case was cited at the hearing of the reported case in this Court. The case of the Lahore High Court which was cited before the two Courts below deals with the matter extremely briefly and does not cite any earlier authorities. learned Counsel for the petitioners has, however, at the hearing of this petition referred to another judgment of a Bench of the Lahore High Court reported in Tirath Ram v. Mt. Nihal Devi A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 664 in which a view has been taken which is diametrically opposite to the earlier judgment of this Court and in which the facts are precisely similar. In that case also the Revenue Officer had directed one of the parties to the partition proceedings to bring the suit in his Court to establish his rights. He failed to do so, and the Revenue Officer, therefore, proceeded with the partition. It was held that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to hear the suit on a question of title was not thereby ousted. After the further arguments which have been addressed to us in this Court we have come to the conclusion that the decision given in Abdullah Said Mohd v. Arbad Taj Mohd Khan A.I.R. 1942 Pesh. 16 must be modified. Section 158(xvii), Punjab Land Revenue Act, reserves to the civil Courts the decision on any question of title arising in partition proceedings, and it has been held by a Full Bench of the Punjab Chief Court in a case reported in Bachan Singh v. Madhan Singh (97) 61 P.R. 1897 that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts is not confined to the period while the partition proceedings are actually pending. A special provision has, however, been made in Section 117 of the Act, whereby the Rev