IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CMPMO No. 311 of 2024

Decided on: 05.01.2026

____________________________________________________ Om Parkash H……….. Petitioner

Versus

Sandesh Kumar & Anr. ……….Respondents _____________________________o_______________________

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chan der Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting? ¹

For the petitioner : Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht,

Advocate, vice Mr. B. C. Verma,

Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior

Advocate, with Mr. Tarun Garla,

Advocate.

_____ _______________________________________________

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral)

The present petition has been preferred against

the impugned order dated 15.01.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Sarkaghat, in CMA No. 787 of 2021, titled Om Prakash v. Sandesh Kumar & Ors., whereby a composite application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), read with Order I Rule 10 CPC, filed by the

present petitioner/plaintiff, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff, in the case at hand, has filed a suit for partition qua Khasra No. 2537, which is

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

recorded as Abadi Deh. By virtue of the amendment sought in the plaint, the petitioner/plaintiff wants to incorpor.ate Khasra No. 2691 in the description of the suit land. Khasra No. 2691 is recorded as Barani Abbal in the revenue record. A portion of the house of the respondent/defendant is stated to lie in Khasra No. 2691. Thfe other co-owners of Khasra No. 2691 are sought to be arrayed as proforma defendants in the suit. Other than the aforesaid, one Balbir Singh, who is stated to have exchanged a part of the suit land with the respondent/defendant without the consent of the present petitioner/plaintiff, is also sought to be included as a party in the pending lis before the Trial Court. The Trial Court has rejected the application under Order VI Rule 17 on the ground that Barani Abbal land can only be partitioned by the Revenue Authorities and not by the Civil Court.

3. The plea that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is completely barred to partition lands assessed to revenue is fallacious. On a combined reading of Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, Section 54 of the CPC, along with Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC, a Civil Court can declare the rights of the parties, and thereafter the actual partition can be carried out by the Collector or any Gazetted Officer subordinate to him. In this respect, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment dated 21.09.2023, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No. 92 of 2023 titled Mamta Rani v. Ram Dass, the relevant extract whereof is being reproduced here-in-below:-

“ 16.Section 171 of the HP Land Revenue Act reads as under:-

“171. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdictio n of Revenue Officers.

Except as otherwise provided by this Act- (1) A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter in which - the State Government or a Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act, and in p articular.

(2) A Civil Ctourt shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely-

xxxxx (xuvii) any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or any question connected with, or arising out of proceedings for partition not being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought;

C(xviii) any question as to the allotment of land on the partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or as to the distribution of land subject by established custom to periodical redistribution, or as to the distribution of h land revenue on the partition of an estate or holding or on a periodical redistribution of land, or as to the distribution of rent on the partition of a tenancy;

xxxxxx

17. It is apparent from the bare perusal of the Section that H the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barre