JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) The respondent No. 1 herein instituted a suit bearing No. 23 of 1993 before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat agitating therein relief that he has by adverse possession acquired title to the land comprised in Khewat Khatoni No. 26 min/27 min, khasra No. 1289/189 (old) and 212 (new), measuring 0-88-66 hectare situated in Village Jukain, Illaqua Suranga, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh The suit was determined against the plaintiff therein/respondent No. 1 herein. The civil suit as instituted at the instance of the plaintiff therein/respondent No. 1 herein was with an assertion of title to the suit land on the anchor of his having by prescription constituted by elapse of the statutorily mandated period of time acquired a ripened right of absolute ownership qua it. 1. The suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat. The plaintiff therein/respondent No. 1 herein had proceeded to institute an appeal before the learned District Judge, Mandi assailing the decree of dismissal of suit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned District Judge, Mandi, the appellant/plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein had proceeded to institute an application under Order 23, Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The application as instituted before the learned District Judge came to be accepted by the latter Court. The State of Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by the impugned order rendered by the learned District Judge, Mandi whereby it on the aforesaid application preferred before it, allowed the prayer as canvassed therein. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also traversed through the entire record. It is manifestly communicated by an incisive traversing of the record of the case that the respondent No. 1 herein while uncontrovertedly being an encroacher upon the suit land had sought by way of instituting a suit before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat, claim title to it by way of adverse possession. It is manifestly communicated by an incisive traversing of the record of the case that the respondent No. 1 herein while uncontrovertedly being an encroacher upon the suit land had sought by way of instituting a suit before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat, claim title to it by way of adverse possession. Nonetheless, it appears that the said remedy as embarked upon or undertaken by the respondent No. 1 herein was a legally inappropriate remedy, besides also the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade was jurisdictionally barred to either delve into or decide the factum of the assertion as launched by the respondent No. 1 herein before him qua his having acquired title to the suit land by way of adverse possession. The said exercise of jurisdiction by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade qua the factum of respondent No. 1 herein having acquired title to the suit land by way of adverse possession was warrantable only during the pendency of proceedings initiated against the plaintiff-respondent herein under Section 163 (3) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, whose provisions are extracted hereinafter:- "When there is a question as to title or to the adverse possession wherein the possession is claimed by an encroacher for a period beyond thirty years in relation to the land from which ejectment is made or is to be made under this section, the Revenue officer, not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of the First Grade, shall proceed to determine the question, as if he were a civil court and shall exercise all such powers as are exercisable by a civil court." Only on initiation and commencement of proceedings at the instance of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade generated by issuance of a notice upon respondent No. 1 herein, whereupon, in the event of the respondent No. 1 herein in response thereto conveying his assertion of title by adverse possession to the suit land would render the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to be competent or empowered to determine the said fact. However, when the record of the case palpably demonstrates the fact that there was no initiation of ejectment proceedings against the respondent No. 1 herein within the contemplation of Section 163 (3) of the Act constituted or generated by the serving of a notice upon him, as such, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was jurisdictionally dis-empowered to try or determine the question of title as asserted over the suit land by the respondent No. 1 herein, moreso, when it was raised/constituted solely at the instance of the respondent No. 1 herein. In aftermath, the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff/respondent herein was to withdraw the appeal by instituting an application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC before the learned District Judge, Mandi, so as to facilitate or pave way for the institution of a Civil Suit before the Civil Court which constituted the appropriate remedy. Consequently, the impugned order rendered thereupon is obviously to be construed to be availment of an appropriate remedy by the respondent No. 1 herein besides as a natural concomitant the orders rendered thereon don the garb of legality. 3. Consequently, the impugned order is neither vitiated with any material irregularity nor suffers from the taint of it having excluded any germane material from consideration or having taken such material into consideration which was discardable. 4. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of.