Darshan Singh and others vs Sub-Judge 1st Class, Hoshiarpur and others

M.M. Panchhi, J.—The petitioners herein seek issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Sub Judge 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, to stop exercising his jurisdiction in a suit preferred before him by respondent No. 2. This petition arises in the following circumstances.

The consolidation operations took place in the village of the petitioners and respondent No. 2. There was a dispute between the parties regarding the manner in which the area was repartitioned. Respondent No. 2, aggrieved against the repartition, filed objections u/s 21(2) of the East Punjab, Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short the Act) Finally the matter came after the usual process of appeals before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, in a petition u/s 42 of the Act and the origina1 position of repartition u/s 21(1) of the Act was restored on March 3, 1978, vide order Annexure P. 1. Respondent No. 2 filed C.W.P. No. 1981 of 1978 in this Court challenging the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated March 3, 1978, which was dismissed on September 6, 1988. After a regular hearing vide order Annexure P-2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 748 of 1984 against that was also dismissed on May 2, 1985. The matter became final so far as this Court was concerned.

Respondent No. 2 then filed a suit for the declaration that the order dated March 3, 1978 of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, was against the scheme and without jurisdiction, having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioners were summoned as defendants in that case. The filed a written statement objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court for the issuance of a writ of prohibition.

The allegations of facts are not disputed by respondent No. 2. The defence adopted is that when objection has been taken to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the written statement, the same be allowed to be tried there.

Ordinarily such an objection should have prevailed, but here the position is different. The impugned order of the Additional Director was questioned in this Court and this Court affirmed it by a speaking order while dismissing. Civil Writ Petition No. 1981 of 1978 and the Letters Patent Bench affirmed the view of the Hon''ble Single Judge. Doctrine of merger thus came into play. The orders of this Court cannot be found fault with in the Subordinate Courts of Civil jurisdiction. Accordingly this petition merits acceptance and the writ asked for is issued.

Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the plaint is struck off from the record of the Civil Court, it being suitably pohibited from proceeding in the matter. No costs.