JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral) - This is a plaintiffs appeal and he is being referred to as such. He filed a suit against the respondents-defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from interfering in the land, as detailed in the suit (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). According to the plaintiff, he was in possession of the land being a co-sharer, in the village where the land is situate, and that defendants have no right to interfere with the same. According to him, 15 days prior to the filing of the suit, defendants attempted to interfere with his possession therefore, the suit had to be filed. When put to notice, the defendants filed their written statement. While controverting the pleas urged on behalf o the plaintiff, they submitted that the land, in question, is shamlat and it stood transferred to them, when some land was purchased by them from the plaintiff, as well as from other co-sharers of the village. In this background, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and no relief can be given to him in this suit. With a view to defeat the case of the plaintiff, defendants also pleaded that entry of correction of the revenue record was made by the Tehsildar settlement, Daultpur Chowk, Amb, vide Ext. D-5, in their favour. The order was passed by the Tehsildar settlement on 16.4.1990 in file No. 573/1989. Written statement was filed somewhere in the year 1989. Plaintiff was put to notice of the entry having been corrected in favour of the defendants with the filing of the written statement. Till date, this order has not been challenged by the plaintiff, legal position is that the order of Revenue Officer under HP. Land Revenue Act is always subject to the filing of the suit under section 46 of the HP. Land Revenue Act. 2. Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that the order of the Tehsildar Settlement, Ext. D-5, is not only illegal and void but is also without jurisdiction and thus nonexistent in the eyes of law. He further assailed the said order and urged that it cannot be made the basis of establishing the title by the defendants. The said order of correction of revenue entries was passed more than a decade ago and has attained finality intra-parties. He further assailed the said order and urged that it cannot be made the basis of establishing the title by the defendants. The said order of correction of revenue entries was passed more than a decade ago and has attained finality intra-parties. Though plaintiff had opportunity to challenge the same, instead of doing so, he accepted the same. 3. Trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? Opp 3. Whether the plaintiff has locus-standi to sue? OPP 4. Whether the suit property has been described properly? OPP 5. Whether the suit is valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as alleged ?OPP 7. Relief. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that entry of possession without status in the revenue record is of no consequence. He also urged that the impugned order, dated April 19, 1990, Ext. D-5, was passed behind the back of his client. Thus, on all these pleas, according to him, this appeal deserves to be admitted and then allowed by reversing the impugned judgment and decree. 5. So far the plea regarding order of the settlement Tehsildar, Daulatpur Chowk, being void and without jurisdiction is concerned, this plea has been raised simply to be rejected. Admittedly, he is an officer of the Revenue Department having jurisdiction over the area of a particular Mohal, who is vested with all the powers of the Revenue Officer under the HP. Land Revenue Act. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then passing of the Ext. D-5, by the settlement Tehsildar, Daulatpur Chowk, is legal and valid. This order , as noted above, is subject to the decision of civil court, as per provisions of section 46 of the HP. Land Revenue Act. Admittedly, no suit, till date, has been filed challenging the said order. 6. In this behalf, it may also be appropriate to observed that the Tehsildar settlement is a competent authority under the Land Revenue Act to have ordered the correction of the revenue entries, as in the present case. It is a case of the order having been passed by an authority having limited jurisdiction, who could have passed the same under law. It is a case of the order having been passed by an authority having limited jurisdiction, who could have passed the same under law. The same having not been challenged in accordance with law is also not disputed at the hearing of this appeal. Here Mr. Ajay Sharma submitted that his client was not present when this order was passed. This plea is factually incorrect being contrary to the contents of Ext. D-5, as it clearly records not only his presence, but also plaintiff having led evidence and thereafter, having been heard by the Revenue Officer. This decision i.e. Ext. D-5 clearly attracts provisions of section 11 (viii) of the Code of Civil Procedure and operates as res-judicata. 7. Mr. Ajay Sharma further submitted that being a void order, it is to be challenged, when it started hurting the rights of his client. Otherwise, the plaintiff need not challenge it. He placed reliance on Abdul Vakil versus Secretary of State and another, AIR 1943 Oudh 368 8. This plea cannot be accepted because even such an order had to be challenged, unless it is declared to be so by the court and once declaration is made, the said order automatically falls even without its being. challenged. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff fairly stated that in the instant case, the order Ext. D-5 is of 19th April, 1990. Till date, the same has not been challenged. For taking this view, reference can be made to State of Punjab versus Gurdev Singh (1991) 4 SCC Page 1 9. So far the plea that the revenue entry corrected by the Tehsildar settlement cannot be made basis for establishing title and reliance placed on State of Himachal Pradesh versus keshav Ram and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2181 by Mr Ajay Sharma is concerned, the same does not improve his case. Reference to this judgment clearly shows that it is a judgment on its own facts and does not help the plaintiff. Similarly, reliance placed on a decision of this court in Rajinder Kumar and another versus Bhag Singh 1996 (1) SLJ 215. A reference to it also shows it a decision on its won facts. Thus law laid down in this case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. No other point is urged. 11. Similarly, reliance placed on a decision of this court in Rajinder Kumar and another versus Bhag Singh 1996 (1) SLJ 215. A reference to it also shows it a decision on its won facts. Thus law laid down in this case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. No other point is urged. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.