JUDGMENT 1. The only point raised upon this appeal is whether or not the present suit is maintainable. It is a suit to recover the deficiency for which the defaulting purchaser is made answerable under sec. 9 of Reg. VIII of 1819, and it is contended for the Appellant that such a suit will not lie, but that to recover this deficiency the present Plaintiffs ought to have made a summary application of "some sort" of a more or less undefined nature to the Revenue authorities. It is clear that under sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is barred by any enactment for the time being in force. Is such cognizance barred in the present case ? It is worthy of passing comment that, in this case, the Plaintiffs did resort to the Revenue authorities in the first instance, and took the case up to the Board of Revenue, the highest authority in the matter, but they were in effect told that their proper remedy was by suit. I may mention too that, although this regulation has been in force for more than eighty year, no authority in any of the Indian Courts is forthcoming to show that a suit will not lie. I think a suit does He. There is nothing in sec. 9 prohibiting a suit. The words "such deficiency to be levied by the process for the execution of decrees of the Civil Courts" seem to indicate that the Civil Courts and not the Revenue authorities are to levy the deficiency in question. But, unless there is some decree or order directing the deficiency to be raised there is nothing to execute : and there is no machinery provided by which such decree or order can be made by the Revenue authorities. It must then be made by the Civil Courts in a suit instituted for the purpose. Originally, as I understand, these sales used to be conducted by the Civil Courts, but such conduct was transferred under sec. 16 of Reg. It must then be made by the Civil Courts in a suit instituted for the purpose. Originally, as I understand, these sales used to be conducted by the Civil Courts, but such conduct was transferred under sec. 16 of Reg. VII of 1832 to the Revenue officers : but the words in the section I have quoted, properly applicable if the sale were to be conducted by the Civil Courts but somewhat meaningless when such conduct was transferred, were probably left in the regulation per incurium. 2. However, these words, whatever they may now mean, cannot be construed to mean that a suit is barred by sec. 9, and I am of opinion that the suit is maintainable. The case of Barraclough v. Brown & ors. L. R. (1897) App. Cas. p. 615 does not apply to the case immediately before us. 3. The appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs. We allow two sets of costs for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants-Respondents separately. Stevens, J. I concur. The difficulty which has been experienced in this case is evidently due to the fact that the duty of holding sales of putni tenures has been transferred from the Civil Courts to the Collector.