JUDGMENT (Surjit Singh, J.) (Oral) - The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 10.6.1997 at District Judge, whereby judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the respondent Tisu Ram (since deceased and now represented by LRs) hereinafter called plaintiff, has been upheld and the appeal dismissed. 2.First, the relevant facts may be noticed. Respondent Tisu Ram, now deceased and represented by his legal representatives, filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of land measuring 21 bighas 18 biswas, as described in the plaint, and that the review of mutation dated 23.6.1988, passed by the Assistant Collector, Bilaspur setting aside the mutation order dated 27.7.1981 of conferment of proprietary rights upon him, in respect of the suit land was illegal without jurisdiction and as such nor binding upon him. By way of further prayer, he prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining appellant Budh Ram, hereinafter called defendant, from interfering in his possession and right of enjoyment of suit property as owner. 3.Facts constituting cause of action, on which the aforesaid reliefs were claimed by the respondent-plaintiff, may be summed up thus. Plaintiff was a tenant on the suit land under one Amar Nath. With the coming into force of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, he became owner of the said land and mutation dated 27.7.1981 of conferment of proprietary rights was also attested in his favour. After some time, Budh Ram claiming himself to be the successor of the said Amar Nath, under a Will, filed a petition for review of aforesaid mutation order dated 27.7.1981, alleging that the said order had been passed behind his back and also challenging the claim of the plaintiff that he was a tenant under Amar Nath. Assistant Collector allowed that application and reviewing the aforesaid order dated 27.7.1981 held that the plaintiff was not a tenant and hence not entitled for conferment of proprietary rights. This order was passed on 23.6.1988. 4.Plaintiff filed suit challenging the legality and validity of the said order dated 23.6.1988 and seeking declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of the provision of Section 104 of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and mutation order dated 27.7.1981, which had illegally been reviewed. This order was passed on 23.6.1988. 4.Plaintiff filed suit challenging the legality and validity of the said order dated 23.6.1988 and seeking declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of the provision of Section 104 of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and mutation order dated 27.7.1981, which had illegally been reviewed. 5.Appellant-defendent contested the suit and claimed that the plaintiff had not been a tenant in respect of the suit land at any stage and, therefore, mutation order dated 27.7.1981 of conferment of proprietary rights had rightly been cancelled by exercise of review powers. It was also alleged that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no right to file the suit nor did he have any cause of action. Suit was also alleged to be barred by limitation and Civil Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit was also challenged. 6.Trial Court framed various issues and ultimately decreed the plaintiff’s suit, vide judgment dated 10.4.1991. Appellant-defendant filed appeal in the Court of District Judge, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.6.1997. Appellant-defendant then filed the present appeal, it was admitted on the following substantial question of law. (1) Whether the plaintiff would be held tenant over the suit land in view of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record? (2) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the landlord-tenant in view of the full Bench Judgment of this High Court in the matter of Chuhniya Devi Vs. Jindu Ram, reported in 1991(1) Shimla Law Cases 223? (3) Whether the Civil Court can interfere with the order of the Collector passed in Review Petition under Section 171 of the H.P.Land Revenue Act? 7.Learned counsel representing the appellant says that the only substantial question of law which, in fact, arises in this appeal is with regard to jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain, try and decide the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. It is alleged that in view of the bar contained in Section 112 of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1971, the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit. According to him, this question is covered by question No. 2 and 3, on which the appeal was admitted. It is alleged that in view of the bar contained in Section 112 of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1971, the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit. According to him, this question is covered by question No. 2 and 3, on which the appeal was admitted. He says that question No. 1 and 4 do not arise in the present appeal and, therefore, call for no finding. 8.As regards question of bar of Civil Court’s jurisdiction, Section 112 of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972, provides that Civil Court will not have jurisdiction in a matter in which validity of any proceedings or orders taken or made under Chapter X of the Act is called, in question. In the present case, the order which has been called in question is the order dated 23.6.1988 of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, whereby he has reviewed the order of conferment of proprietary rights upon the respondent plaintiff. There is no provision for review of order conferring proprietary rights passed under Chapter X of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. That means, the order dated 23.6.1988 of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade reviewing the mutation of conferment of proprietary rights is not under the provisions of Chapter X of the Act and hence, the question of bar, contained in Section 112 of the Act, does not arise. Consequently, the question is answered against the appellant and the appeal is dismissed. M.R.B. —————-