JUDGMENT Ajay Tewari, J (Oral).:- C.M No.3076-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed and delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.1065 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants primarily on the ground that the matter in dispute was covered by the provisions of Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short “the Act”). 2. Dasti notice issued to the respondent has been received back with the report that he has refused to receive the same. In the circumstances, the respondent is proceeded against exparte. 3. Counsel for the appellants has argued that once the Courts below came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable, they should have certified the dispute and returned the plaint for presentation before the competent revenue Court under Section 77 of the Act. 4. Section 77 of the Act reads as follows :- “ 77. Revenue courts and suit cognizable by them.- (1) When a Revenue officer is exercising jurisdiction with respect to any such suit as is described in sub-section (3), or with respect to an appeal or other proceeding arising out of any such suit, he shall be called a Revenue Court. (2) There shall be the same classes of Revenue Courts as of Revenue officers under this Act, and, in the absence of any order of the Government to the contrary, a Revenue Officer of any class having jurisdiction within any local limits under this Act shall be a Revenue Court of the same class having jurisdiction within the same local limits. (3) The following units shall be instituted in, and heard and determined by, Revenue Courts, and no other Court shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter with respect to which any such suit might be instituted : Provided that (1) where in a suit cognizable by and instituted in a Civil Court it becomes necessary to decide any matter which can under this sub-section be heard and determined only by a Revenue Court the civil Court shall endorse upon the plaint the nature of the matter for decision and the particulars required by Order VII Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), and return the plaint for presentation to the Collector; (2) on the plaint being presented to the Collector, the Collector shall proceed to hear and determine the suit where the value thereof exceeds Rs.1,000/- or the matter involved is of the nature mentioned in Section 77(3), First Group, of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887) and in other cases may send the suit to an Assistant Collector of the first grade for decision.” 5. In my opinion, even if the Courts have not taken recourse to Section 77 of the Act, yet it cannot be denied that the appellants would in any case have a right to file a suit under Section 50 of the Act. 6. Counsel for the appellants has argued that the suit would be now barred by delay. I notice from the judgments of the Courts below that the appellants claimed that they were illegally dis-possessed on 23.12.1998 and the present suit was filed on 3.2.1999. Consequently, they would be at liberty to apply for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. With these observations, this appeal is dismissed. As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. --------------