JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the defendants against the affirmative concurrent pronouncements made by both the learned Courts below upon the plaintiffs' suit for declaration for setting aside the revenue entries appearing in the revenue records, whereunder the defendants, stood, shown to be exclusive owners-in-possession, of, the suit khasra numbers. The defendants standing aggrieved therefrom, hence, motioned the instant Court, through, the instant Regular Second Appeal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the suit land was jointly possessed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 3, and defendant No.4 to the extent of 1/3 share each as tenants and after coming into operation of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act they were conferred proprietary rights to the extent of 1/3 share each and mutation to this effect was also sanctioned in their favour. But subsequently jamabandi no effect was given to the said mutation and the names of the plaintiff and defendant No.4 were wrongly deleted from the record of rights. The plaintiff came to know about the wrong entries in March, 1991 and then they approached the defendants No.1 to 3 to get the revenue record corrected by they refused to do so. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they alongwith defendants No.1 to 3 and proforma defendant No.4 are owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/3 share each and the revenue entries showing contrary or the revenue entries showing Sh. Banta Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 3 as sole tenant are wrong, illegal and having no effect on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant to own and possess the suit land jointly with defendants No.1 to 3, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from ousting the plaintiffs and proforma defendant from their joint possession during the pendency of the suit. 3. The defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections of res judicata, jurisdiction, locus standi, limitation, maintainability and estopel. 3. The defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections of res judicata, jurisdiction, locus standi, limitation, maintainability and estopel. On merits, they alleged that their father was the sole tenant of the sit land and by virtue of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, he became owner of the same and after his death the defendants are in possession of the suit land as owners while the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.4 have no concern with the same. The defendants have denied the tenancy of the predecessor of the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 over the suit land. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs along with the defendants have been coming in possession of the suit and, as tenants at will? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata? OPD. 4. Whether the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was sole tenant in possession of the suit land and become owner under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act? OPD 5. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit in view of Section 57 of H.P. Consolidation Act? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit? 10. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the defendants/appellants herein, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded, in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. 6. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded, in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 27th November, 2008, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit challenging the order of the authorities passed under the H.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, particularly, the order of the Director of Consolidation dated 10.04.1979 and D-2 and D-12 when the suit was barred under Section 57 of the H.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act? 2. Whether the findings of the court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence as also pleadings of the parties, particularly, the judgment of the Director of Consolidation dated 10.04.1979 D-12 and D-2? 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff was barred by the principles of resjudicata and the plaintiffs have the locus standi to file the sit in the present form? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3: 7. In the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, and, as comprised in Ex. D-2, and, relating to the year 1970-71, (a) a clear and candid reflection occurs, qua one Labhu Ram, Dhani Ram and Banta Ram, all real brothers, being, recorded as non occupancy tenants, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers. Furthermore, in Ex.D-3, exhibit whereof, is, the jamabandi appertaining to the suit kahsra numbers, and, relates to the year 1978-79, reflections occur, in the remarks column thereof, qua the apt proprietary rights, in accordance with law, standing, conferred, upon, the aforesaid Banta Ram, Dhani Ram, and, Labhu Ram. Even after the afore reflections, as, are, carried in the afore referred revenue records, and, despite the afore entries remaining unchallenged, and, set aside, yet, in the jamabandi, borne in Ex.D-4, and, prepared during the occurrence, of, consolidation operations, in the mohal concerned, the, names of one Labhu Ram and Dhani Ram were deleted therefrom, and, only one Banta Ram, rather remained singularly recorded, as, non-occupancy tenant. The aforesaid deletion of names of Labhu Ram, and, Dhani Ram, was done, in pursuance to the apt roznamcha rapat, borne in Mark-A, wherein it stands recorded, that, in consonance with the orders, comprised, in, Ex.D-12, rendered on 10.04.1979, by the Director Land Holdings, hence, on Sh. Banta Ram, rather standing exclusively shown as non occupancy tenant, in the revenue record. The afore order, as evident, from, Ex.D-11, exhibit whereof embodies, the, judgment rendered by this Court, has, acquired affirmation, and, also conclusivity. 8. Be that as it may, even if the order, borne in Ex. D-12, has acquired conclusivity, yet per se, on anvil thereof, the, occurrence of substitution/changes, in, the earlier thereto revenue records concerned, (a) conspicuously, vis-a-vis, the afore reflections, borne in Ex.D-1, exhibit whereof stands prepared, prior to, the making of EX.D-12, wherein all the afore three brothers, rather are disclosed to be holding, the, conjoint status of 'gair maurusi', vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, rather cannot be validated, (b) nor also the validity of reflections, occurring in the remarks column of Ex.D-3, whereunder, all the afore three real brothers are reflected to stand conferred with the apt statutory proprietary rights, vis-a-vis, the suit kahsra numbers hence can be subsumed. The reason for making the afore conclusion, is, sparked, by, the judgment embodied in Ex.P-3, judgment whereof stands rendered in a civil suit, instituted, in the capacity of, plaintiff by Banta Ram, wherein, he impleaded his brothers Dhani Ram, and, Labhu Ram, in the array of defendants, as, co-defendants No.11 and 12, rather making clear upsurgings qua Banta Ram, making an admission, vis-a-vis, his holding joint ownership and possession qua the suit khasra numbers, (c) thereupon, the aforesaid admission also invalidates the exclusivity of occurrence, of his name, in the revenue records, and, to the exclusion of his afore real brothers, namely, one Labhu Ram and one Dhani Ram, both of whom whereof, in the revenue records, prepared prior to the rendition of the orders, borne in Ex.D-12, are, reflected along with afore Banta Ram, to acquire, in accordance with law, the apt proprietary rights, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers. (d) The occurrence, of, the afore contested entries, in, the revenue records concerned, being clearly, in, departure of the conclusive verdict, borne in Ex.D-12, rendered on 10.04.1979, whereunder, a direction stood pronounced qua, the, afore three brothers, being reflected as co-tenants, vis-a-vis, the suit land, and, one Banta Ram being pronounced, to be recorded in cultivating possession of the suit land. In aftermath, the contested entries occurring in the revenue records, hence, when openly transgress, the, conclusivity, of, the mandate borne in Ex.D-12, hence renders them for being declared as null and void, as, aptly done by both the learned Courts below. 9. Even otherwise, even if, assumingly, the afore mandate, is not, borne in the conclusive mandate comprised in Ex.D-12, (i) nonetheless, with one Banta Ram, camouflaging the afore reflections, borne in Ex.D-3, whereunder proprietary rights, stood, in accordance with law, conferred, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, upon him, and his other two brothers, namely, one Dhani Ram and one Labhu Ram, (ii) besides hence appears, to, rather procure, the, afore order, by his camouflaging, the afore admission, borne in the verdict, encapsulated in Ex. P-3, as, rendered in a litigation instituted by Banta Ram, wherein, he had impleaded both Labhu Ram and Dhani Ram, in the array of defendants, as co-defendants No.11 and 12 respectively. In aftermath, even the afore order borne in in Ex. D-12, is, visibly acquired by Banta Ram, by his playing active suggestio falsi and suppressio veri, rendering hence the afore verdict to be both blemished and stained. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants, has, contended with much vigour, that with, the, conclusive verdict rendered in Ex. D-12, hence, standing pronounced by the authority concerned, constituted, under, the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), (i) and, with engraftment, of, a statutory bar under Section 57 thereof, (ii) provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, against the institution, of, a civil suit or proceedings, in, a Civil Court, with respect to any matter arising out, of, the consolidation proceedings or with respect to any other matter in regard to which a suit or application can be filed under the provisions of this Act, (iii) thereupon, also the verdict pronounced in Ex. D-12, was unquestionable before the civil Court, and, hence, the affirmative concurrent verdicts rendered upon the plaintiffs' suit, are amenable for interference. D-12, was unquestionable before the civil Court, and, hence, the affirmative concurrent verdicts rendered upon the plaintiffs' suit, are amenable for interference. Section 57 of the aforesaid Act reads as under :- “57, Jurisdiction of civil court barred as regards matter arising under this Act- No person shall institute any suit or other proceedings in any civil court with respect to any matter arising out of the consolidation proceedings or with respect to any other matter in regard to which a suit or application can be filed under the provisions of this Act.” However, the aforesaid submission as addressed before this Court also cannot hold any sway, (iv) given, even if, the afore verdict has acquired conclusivity, given, this Court affirming it, yet when the authority exercising powers within the domain of, the, afore Act, is, enjoined to bear in mind, qua the exercise of jurisdiction, evidently, satiating, rather the salutary purpose, embodied in the apposite Act, (v) salutary purpose whereof stands comprised, in the occurrence, of, consolidation of land holdings, and, prevention of fragmentation, of, the agricultural holdings, (vi) whereas, the orders borne in Ex.D-12, not making any unraveling, qua, in its making, the afore holistic and salutary purpose rather standing borne, in, mind by the authority concerned, (vii) thereupon, when the order borne in Ex.D- 12, appears to be beyond the domain of the afore holistic purpose, as, embodied in the Act, (viii) in sequel hence prima facie, illegality, if any, ingraining the making of Ex.D-12, is, hence questionable, before the Civil Court, and, also the revenue entries made in purported compliance thereof, are also, amenable for being tested in a suit, cast before the civil court concerned, more so when even otherwise, the, contested entries, are, made in transgression of the mandate, borne in Ex.D-12. 11. 11. Be that as it may, even if, assumingly the afore statutory bar, stands, attracted hereat, and, also assumingly, if the civil suit was barred to assume jurisdiction, upon, the apposite civil suit,(a) yet when the exception to the attraction of the afore express statutory bar, is, comprised in the authority concerned, in rearing the pat proceedings, it, not, adhering to the rules, of, audi alteram partem, and, when thereupon the rigor of the bar is relaxed, (b) AND concomitantly when hence the civil court, would hold the jurisdiction, to test the legality, of, the pronouncement, purportedly made within the domain of the Act, (c) besides when in consonance with the afore excepting principle also evidence is adduced, qua, in the proceedings drawn prior to the making of Ex.D-12, the authority concerned, rather not eliciting the presence, of, Labhu Ram, and, of Dhani Ram, against whom the purported adversarial verdict is pronounced, (d) rather begets a sequel, qua even if, assumingly the afore statutory bar is attractable hereat, yet thereupon the civil Court being not barred to assume jurisdiction, upon, the apt civil suit. 12. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court being based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, both the learned courts below have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendants/appellants. 13. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgment and decree rendered by both the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.