JUDGMENT 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have challenged the legality & propriety or the judgment and decree dated 15.3-94 passed by the Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazaar in Civil Appeal No.23-A/93, affirming the order dated 4.10.1993 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Baloda Bazaar in Civil Suit No.145-A/88, whereby civil suit filed on behalf of original plaintiff/appellant Devidayal for permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. The present appeal has been admitted for consideration on the following substantial question of law: "Whether a right to prescribed procedure is a civil right and a civil suit is maintainable for declaration that the decision is invalid and not binding ?" 3. As per allegation made in the plaint on behalf of the original plaintiff/ appellant, he was owner of 5.31 acres of the land situated at village Lawan, Patwari Circle No. ] 03, Tahsil Baloda Bazaar. Defendant No.2 i.e. Naib Tahsildar initiated Revenue Case No.77 -B/121-87 -88 for eviction of the plaintiff from the aforesaid land which was void and without jurisdiction. Order dated 18.8.80 passed against dead person Mangalacharan was without jurisdiction without bringing legal heir of Mangalacharan i.e. plaintiff Devidayal. Older passed by the appellate Court dated 7.6.88 was also without jurisdiction. Aforesaid proceeding was not against original plaintiff Devidayal, no opportunity of hearing was provided to him. On the aforesaid basis, suit for permanent injunction from restraining the defendants was filed by original plaintiff/appellant Devidayal. 4. By filing written statement original defendant Dhanbai i.e. predecessor in-title of present respondents No.1-A to I-H has denied the allegation made in the plaint and has specifically pleaded that father of the appellant has illegally obtained possession of the land belonging to Dhanbai which has been purchased by husband of Dhanbai namely, Sibo from one Prahlad. Mangalacharan, father of original plaintiff Devidayal has lent Rs.14001- to Sibo and as a security of loan he succeeded in execution of sale deed which was not to be acted upon in his favour. Even otherwise Sibo has purchased the land on consideration of Rs.34001- and it was not possible to sell the same only on consideration of Rs.14001-. Mangalacharan, father of original plaintiff Devidayal has lent Rs.14001- to Sibo and as a security of loan he succeeded in execution of sale deed which was not to be acted upon in his favour. Even otherwise Sibo has purchased the land on consideration of Rs.34001- and it was not possible to sell the same only on consideration of Rs.14001-. Proceeding under the Chhattisgarh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1976') was drawn by competent authority. After inquiry application filed on behalf of original defendant Dhanbai was dismissed. Same was challenged before appellate Court and vide order dated 7.6.88 the Additional Collector, Raipur has allowed the appeal and directed for return of the land to original defendant Dhanbai in which legal heir of Manglacharan namely Devidayal was respondent. Order passed under -the aforesaid act reached into finality and was not subject-matter of any civil suit in accordance with Sections 9 and 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1976. Issues were framed and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, Civil Judge Class-II, Baloda Bazaar finally dismissed the suit for permanent injunction. Same was challenged before the appellate Court and vide judgment and decree impugned the appellant Court has dismissed the appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and decree impugned, judgment and decree of the trial Court and records of the Courts below. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that competent authority under the aforesaid Adhiniyam has drawn proceeding against Manglacharan on 28.4.82 vide order sheets Ex.O/2. As per report of patwari Ex.O/3, Manglacharan died during pendency of aforesaid proceeding leaving his only legal heir Devidayal, original plaintiff. Final order Ex.P/S was passed on 18.9.87, in which names of the parties were shown as Dhanbai v. Manglachqran and Manglacharan was not alive on the date of passing of such order. Vide aforesaid order, application of Dhanbai was dismissed. Same was challenged before the Additional Collector by original defendant Dhanbai, in which the original plaintiff Devidayal was party. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties order impugned was reversed and appellate Court directed for return of the property to Dhanbai. Vide aforesaid order, application of Dhanbai was dismissed. Same was challenged before the Additional Collector by original defendant Dhanbai, in which the original plaintiff Devidayal was party. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties order impugned was reversed and appellate Court directed for return of the property to Dhanbai. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the original plaintiff has filed civil suit for permanent injunction against Dhanbai and revenue officers. Learned counsel further argued that competent authority was not competent to proceed and pass any order against dead person and the order passed against dead person was a nullity. Learned counsel contended that in order to succeed for reverting the land back to seller, seller was under obligation to prove the fact that he belongs to economically weaker section of society and transaction was entered into with a view to exploit him economically. Learned counsel further contended that for maintainability of an application under Section 5 of this Act, the applicant must be a holder of agricultural' land as has been defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act, 1976 and the person advancing loan to a holder must be a lender of money as has further been defined in sub-clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act, 1976. If these two conditions are satisfied, then only, an application under Section 5 would be maintainable before the concerned authority and if such an application would be maintainable before the concerned authority, then only, the civil jurisdiction under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act shall be barred. 7. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Narmada Shankar and another Vs. The Collector, Dist. Dhar and others in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that the applicant must prove that he belongs to economically weaker section of society and transaction was entered into with a view to exploit him economically. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Krishna Manjari (Smt.) and others Vs. Mukut Ram another in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that Adhiniyam is only partially retrospective and in case of transaction of 1963, Adhiniyam is not applicable. Learned counsel relied upon the matter of Kishun @ Ram Kishun (dead) through LRs Vs. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Krishna Manjari (Smt.) and others Vs. Mukut Ram another in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that Adhiniyam is only partially retrospective and in case of transaction of 1963, Adhiniyam is not applicable. Learned counsel relied upon the matter of Kishun @ Ram Kishun (dead) through LRs Vs. Bihari (Dead) by LRs in which the Supreme Court has held that decree passed in favour of a party, who ,was dead or against a party, who was dead, is a nullity. As in the absence of the legal heirs being brought on record, the appeal itself abates. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Ku.Bode Kachh Vs. Abdul Rehman & another in which this Court has held that courts are not competent to pass the order against dead person. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Narendra and another Vs. Sahebin and others in which this Court has held that for maintainability of an application under Section 5 of this Act, in addition to a dispute referred therein, a person must be a holder of agricultural land as has been defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act and the person advancing the money to him must be a lender of money as has further been defined in sub-clause (d) of Section 2. If these two conditions are satisfied, then only, an application under Section 5 would be maintainable before the concerned authority and if such an application would be maintainable before the concerned authority, then only, the civil jurisdiction under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act shall be barred. Learned counsel relied upon the matter of Dhulabhai etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another in which the Supreme Court has held that where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to' do what the civil court would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Learned counsel also relied upon the matter of Smt. Agrawal wdJo G.S.Agrawal and another Vs. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Learned counsel also relied upon the matter of Smt. Agrawal wdJo G.S.Agrawal and another Vs. Arya Vidhya Sabha and another' in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that Order 22 Rule 4 comes into play where the death of a defendant occurs in a pending suit. The rule will not apply if such death had occurred before the institution of the suit. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and argued that revenue authorities have rightly decided the application of Dhanbai. Against such order and proceeding suit was not maintainable in terms of Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1976. Both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit as well as appeal. 9. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Seth Ratilal v. Smt. Ganga Sai & 5 Ors.8 in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that any person advancing loan to a holder of land is included in the term. Money lender and lender of money have different significance. . 10. As held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and this Court in the matters of Narmada Shankar' and another1 (supra), Krishna Manjari (Smt.) and others (supra) and Narendra and another (supra), in order to attract the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1976, the applicant is required to satisfy that he was a holder of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people as defined under Section 2 (c) and a person in whose favour sale deed was executed was lender of money as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Adhiniyam, 1976 and such transaction was prohibited transaction of loan under Section 2 (t) of the Adhiniyam, 1976. The applicant is also required to plead and prove that he belongs to economically weaker sections of the society and transaction was entered into with a view to exploit him economically. 11. The applicant is also required to plead and prove that he belongs to economically weaker sections of the society and transaction was entered into with a view to exploit him economically. 11. Section 2 (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the Adhiniyam, 1976 reads as under: "Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) "holder of agricultural land" in the weaker sections of the people means a holder of land used for purposes of Agriculture not exceeding eight hectares of unirrigated land or four hectares of irrigated land within the State whether as a Bhumiswami or an occupancy tenant or a Government lessee either in anyone or all of the capacities together within the meaning of the Code. Explanation.-One hectare of irrigated land shall be equal to two hectares of un irrigated land and vice versa. (d) "lender of money" means a person advancing loan to a holder of agricultural land, whether registered under the Chhattisgarh Money Lenders Act, 1934 (No. 13 of 1934) or not; (e) xxx xxx xxx (f) "prohibited transaction of loan" means a transaction in which a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural land against security of his interest in land, whether at the time of advancing the loan or at any time thereafter during the currency of the loan in any of the following modes, namely:- (i) agreement to sell land with or without delivery of possession; (ii) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession accompanied by separate agreement to re-sell it; (iii) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession with a distinct oral understanding that the sale shall not be acted upon if the loan is re-paid; (iv) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession with a condition incorporated in the sale deed to re-sell it on re-payment of the loan; (v) transaction in any modes other than those specified in clauses (i) to (iv) affecting interest in land including a fraudulent transaction or a transaction designed to defeat the provisions of any law regulating money lending or interest, for the time being in force, and includes all those transactions in which a lender of money has after the appointed day but on or before the date of publication of this Act in the. Gazette, obtained possession of land of the holder of agricultural land through court or by force or otherwise or obtained a decree for such possession towards satisfaction of loan; (f) words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Code or the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 (No.IV of 1982) shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Code or that Act, as the case may be." . 12. As held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Seth Ratilal8 (supra), any person advancing loan to a holder of land is also money lender. 13. As per Section 2 (d) of the Adhiniyam, 1976, "lender of money" means a person advancing loan to a holder of agricultural land, whether registered under the Chhattisgarh Money Lenders Act, 1934 (No. 13 of 1934) or not. As per Section 2 (a), "appointed day" means the pI day of January, 1971. As per Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1976, a holder of agricultural land who is a party to any transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter may apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer within such time, and in such form and manner as may be prescribed for protection and relief under this Act. 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Dhulabhai etc.6 (supra) has laid down the following principles regarding exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court.- "(I) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil court would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provide for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. (3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra viras cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision 'or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. (5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected, a suit lies. (6) Questions of the correctness of the- assessment apart from. its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry. (7) An exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply." 15. In the light of touchstone of law declared by the Supreme Court, the case in hand is examined. Section 2 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 provides appointed day, holder of agricultural land, lender of money, principal money and prohibited transaction of loan. Sections 4 and 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 further provides all prohibited transactions of loan to be subject to protection and relief under this Act and application for protection and seeking relief under this Act. Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 provides complete and detail procedure for inquiry. Sections 4 and 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 further provides all prohibited transactions of loan to be subject to protection and relief under this Act and application for protection and seeking relief under this Act. Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 provides complete and detail procedure for inquiry. Order passed by the competent authority is appeal able under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 and as per Section 9, order passed in appeal becomes final and shall not be called in question, in any court, tribunal or authority by way of an appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 creates bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts. 16. Exs.0/2 and 0/3 reveal that during pendency of proceeding before competent Court Manglacharan died and his son Sanjay by showing himself as only legal heir has filed objection before such authority. Appeal was preferred by original defendant Dhanbai against original plaintiff and after hearing the parties order dated in June, 1988 has been passed. After passing such order original plaintiff Devidayal has filed civil suit on 22.11.1988 for permanent injunction in interfering with the possession. In the light of order passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur dated 7th June, 1988, only suit for permanent injunction in the absence of any declaration of aforesaid order as null and void on the ground of aforesaid substantial question of law "whether a right to prescribed procedure is a civil right and a civil suit is maintainable for declaration that the decision is invalid and not binding ?" was not maintainable before civil Court. Legality and propriety of the aforesaid order/proceeding was not under challenge before civil Court. 17. In the light of order dated 7th June, 1988 and bar created under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1976, suit as framed was not maintainable. Civil Judge Class-II, Bal9da Bazaar and Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazaar have rightly dismissed the suit and appeal on the ground of maintainability of suit. The original plaintiff/appellant was having sufficient opportunity to take I objection before competent authority i.e. appellate forum under Adhiniyam, 1976, but son of the original appellant showing himself as only sole legal heir of Manglacharan has contested the case before competent authority and the original appellant has contested the appeal. The original plaintiff/appellant was having sufficient opportunity to take I objection before competent authority i.e. appellate forum under Adhiniyam, 1976, but son of the original appellant showing himself as only sole legal heir of Manglacharan has contested the case before competent authority and the original appellant has contested the appeal. Even otherwise the original plaintiff/appellant has not filed any suit for declaration of aforesaid order of the competent authority and appellate authority as null and void on the ground of nullity before civil Court, therefore, aforesaid question cannot be adjudicated at the stage of second appeal without any/pleading and relief claimed. 18. In these circumstances, decision on aforesaid substantial question of law that "whether a right to prescribed procedure is a civil right and a civil suit is maintainable for declaration that the decision is invalid and not binding" would be only academic question for consideration in the present appeal in the absence of such pleading and relief claimed by the original plaintiff/appellant. 19. I do not find any ground for decision on aforesaid academic question of law in the absence of any pleading and claim of relief for such declaration and without cause for consideration. 20. Consequently, substantial question of law formulated for the decision of this appeal would be academic question and does not require any consideration. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 21. Parties shall bear their own costs throughout. 22. Advocate fee as per schedule. 23. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Appeal Dismissed.