JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The learned trial Court had rendered a decree holding a pronouncement therein qua the judgment recorded by the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat on 24.12.1992 being non-est. Also it pronounced a decree qua the plaintiffs becoming owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The defendants standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned trial Court preferred an appeal therefrom before the learned District Judge who while affirming the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court qua the judgment recorded by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat on 24.12.1992 being non-est yet proceeded to rescind the decree of the learned trial Court whereby the plaintiffs were declared to become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The defendants standing aggrieved by the findings recorded by the learned District Judge, for reversal whereof they institute the instant appeal herebefore. 2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and averred that land comprised in Khewat No.57 min Khatauni No.141 Min Khasra No.1075 measuring 0-62-10 hectare is situated at village Kailag, illaqua Anatpur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. (for short =the suit land') and there is house of defendant No.1 with verandah double storeyed over Khasra No.1075/1 measuring 0-01-40 hectares and cow shed consisting of three rooms with its courtyard over Khasra No.1075/2 measuring 0-04-42 hectares. The possession of the plaintiff No.1 over the suit land is open, peaceful hostile, continuous, without interruption and to the knowledge of the defendants from January 1960 and has now matured into title. Thus, the plaintiffs have become owners by way of adverse possession and the same is reflected in red ink in the spot map. The land comprised in Khasra No.1075/4 measuring 0-15-17 hectare is also in adverse possession of the plaintiffs No.2 to 7 as their possession is peaceful, continuous and hostile since the time of their father and the same has matured into title. It is averred that the defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendant No.2 has obtained fraudulently a collusive judgment on 24.12.1992 of the suit land from Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat exercising the powers of Civil Court on the basis of adverse possession which judgment is result of fraud and the same is liable to be set aside. It is averred that the defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendant No.2 has obtained fraudulently a collusive judgment on 24.12.1992 of the suit land from Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat exercising the powers of Civil Court on the basis of adverse possession which judgment is result of fraud and the same is liable to be set aside. Thereafter, mutation was also got sanctioned on the basis of the above judgment in favour of defendant No.1 and the same is void and not operative qua the rights of the plaintiff. The defendants for the first time on 24.12.1992 disclosed that he has obtained judgment of the suit land in his favour and has also got the mutation attested in his favour. All the above acts have been done by the defendant No.1 in collusion with the Patwari Halqua as well as Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat whereby an ejectment file was prepared against the defendant No.1 of the suit land and false reports were also got prepared. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to get the judgment of 24.12.1992 set aside as the same has been obtained by him with fraud and in collusion with defendant No.2 but of no use, hence the suit. 3. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted and defendant No.1 filed separate written statement taking preliminary objection inter alia of cause of action, maintainability, jurisdiction, valuation and the plaintiff having no locus standi to file the present suit. The description of the suit land given in para No.1 of the plaint was admitted. However, the defendant denied that the plaintiff is in adverse possession of the suit land. The defendant No.1 also alleged that the plaintiff should have filed appeal against the judgment of the Assistant Grade 1st Grade. It is also denied that there are different types of trees over the suit land. The defendant denied other averments made in the plaint. 4. Defendant No.2 filed separate written statement and took preliminary objection of jurisdiction, want of notice under Section 80, cause of action, valuation and limitation. It was denied that the plaintiff No.1 has his house with verandah over Khasra No.1075/1. It is also alleged that defendant No.1 Roop Singh filed application for adverse possession before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, SArkaghat in respect of Khasra No.1075 measuring 0-62-10 and the judgment was passed in his favour on 24.12.1992. It was denied that the plaintiff No.1 has his house with verandah over Khasra No.1075/1. It is also alleged that defendant No.1 Roop Singh filed application for adverse possession before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, SArkaghat in respect of Khasra No.1075 measuring 0-62-10 and the judgment was passed in his favour on 24.12.1992. Mutation has also been attested in favour of the said defendant. It was also submitted that the suit land is in exclusive possession of State of H.P. and the entries made in the revenue record are on the basis of judgment of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade exercising the powers of Civil Court, the same is legally binding and is in accordance with law. The defendant denied other averments made in the plaint. 5. In the replication filed on behalf of the plaintiff the averments as contained in the plaint were reiterated and those of the written statements contrary to the plaint were refuted. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- (i) Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their title to suit land by way of adverse possession? OPP. (ii) Whether the defendants are interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs, as alleged? OPP (iii) Whether the judgment dated 24.12.1992, passed by AC 1st Grade Shri J.P. Sharma, is the result of fraud and same is liable to be set aside? OPP. (iv) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit? OPD. (v) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (vi) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD (vii) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD (viii) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (ix) Whether the defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit land by virtue of judgment by the competent authority? OPD-1 (x) Relief. 7. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs whereas the learned First Appellate Court had partly allowed the appeal preferred before it by the defendant/appellant. 8. Now the appellant/defendant has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, in, its impugned judgment and decree. 8. Now the appellant/defendant has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, in, its impugned judgment and decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 13.07.2009, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether both the Courts below have mis-read and mis-construed oral as well as documentary evidence on record and arrived at a wrong conclusion? 2. Whether both the Courts below have wrongly decided Issue No.5 in respect of maintainability of the suit in view of the fact that judgment was passed on 24.12.1992 by the AC 1st Grade, Sarkaghat while exercising the power of Civil Judge under the proceedings under Section 163 of the HP Land Revenue Act and the respondents/plaintiffs have not preferred any appeal from the said judgment to the District Judge and the judgment has attained finality? 3. Whether bothe the Courts below have wrongly decided the matter wherein proprietary rights were vested in favour of the appellant/defendant on 24.12.1992 and as per the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Chunia Versus Jindu, Sim. Law Cases (1991) Full Bench, whereby Civil Court having no jurisdiction to interpret in respect of proprietary rights? 4. Whether both the Courts below are wrong in holding that the judgment dated 24.12.1992 is a result of fraud in view of the fact that ingredients of fraud were neither pleaded nor proved in accordance with Order 6 Rule 4 of CPC? 5. Whether both the Courts below were wrong while decreeing the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs on ground of adverse possession in view of the admission of appellant/defendant, wherein possession of respondents/plaintiffs has been admitted from 1990 but against the State, possession should be more than 30 years? Substantial questions of law: 9. The judgment of learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat stood pronounced on 24.12.1992. It stands embedded in Ext.PW-4/A whereupon the defendant No.1/appellant herein stood declared to become owner (s) of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Substantial questions of law: 9. The judgment of learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat stood pronounced on 24.12.1992. It stands embedded in Ext.PW-4/A whereupon the defendant No.1/appellant herein stood declared to become owner (s) of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The aforesaid judgment recorded by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade stood preceded by the Patwari concerned making a report qua the suit land, described in the relevant records to be holding a classification of “Makbuja Malik Tabe Hakuk Bartandaran Mutabik Bartan”, whereon the entire village body holds customary rights qua its user in consonance with the apposite reflections in the apposite record, standing subjected to encroachment in sequel whereto appropriate proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act stood initiated against the purported encroachers. A perusal of Ext.PW-4/A omits to make a disclosure therein qua any representation standing caused therebefore on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh whereas it had initiated proceedings therebefore against the deceased defendant for seeking his eviction therefrom. It appears qua hence the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat, proceeding to make his pronouncement even when the State of Himachal Pradesh stood unrepresented therebefore. Also a perusal of the relevant records emanating from the office of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat make a disclosure therein qua his ordering for the State of Himachal Pradesh which had instituted before him apposite proceedings for eviction of the deceased defendant from the suit land being ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. Consequently, the State of Himachal Pradesh did not hold the defendants' witnesses to cross examination while they therebefore propagated in their respective statements qua theirs by prescription ensuing from completion of the statutorily mandated period of time hence perfecting their title qua the suit land. Also when as afore-stated, with the suit land standing recorded in the apposite revenue record to hold the classification “Makbuja Malik Tabe Hakuk Bartandaran Mutabik Bartan”, whereon the entire village body holds customary rights qua its user in consonance with the apposite reflections held in the apposite revenue record whereupon the individuals whose names occur in the list of “Bartandarans” stood enjoined to in the apposite lis to stand therein arrayed in the apposite array of litigants also when hence theirs being heard therebefore was imperative significantly when their rights thereon would stand substantially affected by an adverse decision recorded qua them. However, even without their impleadment, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat proceeded to record an order declaring the deceased defendant to become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. All the aforesaid facts are magnificatory qua the rendition comprised in PW-4/A standing stained with a vice of complicity besides collusion occurring inter se the Assistant Collector concerned vis-à-vis the defendants. Also it stands vitiated with a vice of its infracting the principle of audi alteram partem. The aforesaid inference stands aggravatedly accentuated by the pronouncements made by PW-9 qua their existing no person named as Kanu Ram son of Sadhu Ram who however stood examined before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for succoring the claim of the defendants qua the suit land. The aforesaid deposition of PW-9 qua the aforesaid fact stands corroborated by PW-13. In aftermath, reliance, if any, placed upon the deposition of Kanu Ram son of Sadhu Ram who purportedly corroborated the testification of the deceased defendant recorded before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade qua his acquiring title to the suit land by way of adverse possession, hence holds visible bespeakings of the deceased defendant by practicing fraud upon the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat, his obtaining from him the pronouncement occurring in Ext.PW- 4/A. Even otherwise the factum of the house of the defendants existing on the suit land stands falsified by an admission made in his written statement by the deceased defendant conveying qua contrarily the house of the plaintiff existing thereupon, whereupon hence it was imperative for the Assistant Collector concerned to on a motion standing made therebefore by the deceased defendant cause their impleadment in the apposite array of defendants whereas the deceased defendant despite holding knowledge qua the plaintiffs raising a house on the suit land his omitting to beget their impleadment in the apposite array of defendants, is an open proclamation qua his contriving behind the back of the plaintiffs also his by practicing fraud upon the Assistant Collector his obtaining therefrom the apposite pronouncement of 24.12.1992, whereupon necessarily it hence stands ingrained with a pervasive stain of vitiation, spurred by the factum qua the entrenched interests of the plaintiffs upon the suit land standing throttled besides by theirs coming to be condemned unheard. Also for reasons as assigned hereinabove the pronouncement occurring in Ext.PW-4/A visibly emanates on collusion occurring inter se the deceased defendant vis-à-vis the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat. 10. Be that as it may, with an entrenched stain of nullity for reasons aforesaid gripping Ext.PW-4/A, thereupon the rigour of the mandate of the relevant provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act whereupon a civil Court is barred to exercise jurisdiction qua verdicts recorded in proceedings embarked under Section 163 of the HP Land Revenue Act stands benumbed also the statutory bar constituted in the relevant statutory provisions engrafted in the H.P. Land Revenue Act against a Civil Court trying a lis arising from proceedings launched under the provisions of 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, lis whereof is statutorily exclusively triable by a Revenue Officer (s), remains unattracted hereat significantly when the plaintiffs herebefore were not a party in the hitherto lis whereupon the verdict pronounced stands evidently stained with an infirmity qua its infracting the principle of audi alteram partem whereupon reiteratedly the rigor of the relevant statutory bar against a civil Court trying a civil suit arising from verdict (s) recorded by Revenue Officer (s) in proceedings drawn under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, gets benumbed besides gets relaxed. Also for lack of occurrence of the names of the plaintiffs in the apposite array of litigants in the rendition pronounced by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat comprised in PW-4/A whereas for reasons afore-stated their impleadment therebefore was imperative also does not attract qua the extant suit the principle of res-judicata obviously when the pronouncement comprised in Ext.PW-4/A was not qua similar parties/combatants hereat. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has contended on anvil of a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Bagshi Ram, 2001 (2) Current Civil Law Journal 520, relevant paragraph-11 stands extracted hereinafter:- “11. It is not even the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that an appeal lies before the District Judge against the order passed by the Collector in exercise of the power under Section 14 of the Act. The Scheme of the Act is that if the Assistant Collector exercises jurisdiction under sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 163 of the Act “as if a Civil Court”, that an appeal would lie to the District Judge. The Scheme of the Act is that if the Assistant Collector exercises jurisdiction under sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 163 of the Act “as if a Civil Court”, that an appeal would lie to the District Judge. In the instant case, the order passed by the Assistant Collector was confirmed by the Collector under Section 14 of the Act. Hence, the District Judge could not have entertained the appeal and hence the judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set aside.” wherein it is propounded qua the Assistant Collector while exercising jurisdiction under subsection (3) and (4) of Section 163 of the HP Land Revenue Act his exercising the apposite jurisdiction of a Civil Court wherefrom preferment of an appeal therefrom before the learned District Judge constituting the appropriate statutory remedy wherefrom he canvasses qua the rendition recorded on the civil suit by the learned trial Court besides the verdict recorded by the learned District Judge in an appeal preferred therefrom before him, both acquiring a taint of theirs being jurisdictionally void. However, the aforesaid submission holds no vigour in the face of the aforestated discussion holding upsurgences qua the impugned rendition of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat emanating on fraud standing practiced upon it by the deceased defendant also its infracting the principle of audi alteram partem whereupon hence with a visible contradistinctivity occurring hereat vis-à-vis the factual matrix prevailing in the citation propounding the aforestated principle wherefrom hence it is to be aptly concluded qua the apposite remedy available for availment by the plaintiffs standing comprised in theirs instituting a civil suit, as tenably done by them. Also for unmasking the stains of nullity on aforestated grounds embodying the impugned rendition warranted striking of apposite issues in consonance therewith besides adduction of germane evidence thereon whereas availment by the plaintiffs of the prescribed statutory remedy would for want of apposite pleadings hence preclude them to constrain the learned District Judge to strike an apposite issue on facet aforesaid conspicuously when they were not parties in the earlier lis. Also they would stand interdicted to adduce germane evidence thereon whereas when the aforesaid facilitations would accrue to the plaintiffs only on theirs instituting a civil suit before a civil Court renders hence the remedy as availed by them to not attract the jurisdictional bar expostulated in the judgment afore-stated. 12. Also they would stand interdicted to adduce germane evidence thereon whereas when the aforesaid facilitations would accrue to the plaintiffs only on theirs instituting a civil suit before a civil Court renders hence the remedy as availed by them to not attract the jurisdictional bar expostulated in the judgment afore-stated. 12. Reiteratedly, with the plaintiffs pleading in the suit qua the rendition of the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat standing stained with a vice of fraud and collusion, in sequel thereto with the plaintiffs also casting an apposite averment in their suit vis-à-vis the defendants is also a sufficient factum qua thereupon theirs making a tenable onslaught qua hence the frailty of the rendition afore-stated. Substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and against the appellants/defendants. 13. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed. All pending application (s) shall also stand disposed of. No costs. The records be sent back forthwith.