JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff's suit for rendition, of, a decree for declaration, besides, for rendition, of, a decree, for, permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit khasra number (s), was, hence decreed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff in her suit, has averred that she was owner in possession of the land measuring 11.13 bighas as detailed in the plaint, and, in her suit, she has questioned the validity of the entries in the revenue record being illegal, wrong, and, not binding on her. She further, in her suit, sought the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant besides sought the relief in the alternative for possession of the suit land. It has been pleaded that she was married to Sh. Bhag Singh s/o Sh. Rama Ram. Shri Rama Ram was serving in the Indian Armed Forces, who died in the year 1971, during the war qua liberation of Bangla Desh. The plaintiff being the widow was allotted Nautor land measuring 12.8 bighas, comprised in khasra No.2085, and, accordingly entered in possession of the suit land, which was developed by her and brought under cultivation. In the year 1977, the plaintiff sold the piece of land measuring 15 biswas bearing khasra No.2085 for a consideration of Rs.2,000/- to one Ram Rattan and Shri Mahant, but further submits that she had been continuing in possession of remaining piece of land measuring 11.13 bighas bearing Khasra No.2085/2 being its owner. The plaintiff aver that the defendant who managed to procure the entries qua the suit land in her name, has been threatening to dispossess th said plaintiff from the suit land. The plaintiff submits that on inquiry, she came to know that the defendant had procured an order from the revenue agency of 13.2.1980, in her name, which entries are void ab initio vide which the said defendant was recorded as a tenant in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff submits that on inquiry, she came to know that the defendant had procured an order from the revenue agency of 13.2.1980, in her name, which entries are void ab initio vide which the said defendant was recorded as a tenant in respect of the suit land. It is averred by the plaintiff that the entries in the name of the defendant being a tenant are patently illegal, inoperative, and, against the factual position, and, as the defendant had been threatening to oust the plaintiff from the sit land on the basis of said entry, hence, has filed the present suit for the reliefs as set out in the plaint. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, she has taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties, limitation valuation, estoppel etc. On merits, though the defendant admitted the sanction of the suit land under Nautor in favour of the plaintiff, but denied the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. It is also controverted that part of the suit land was sold by the plaintiff. To the contrary, the defendant took the plea that the part of the suit land was illegally encroached by Ram Rattan, Prem Lal, Mahant Ram and Harnam Singh. The defendant further submitted that since June, 1975, she was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff on payment of rent, and, as the plaintiff re-married with one Dayal Sing in the year 1970, as such she never entered in possession of the suit land. The defendant further submits that she has become owner of the suit land by operation of law, i.e. H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and thus right, title and interest of the plaintiff as such extinguished. Above all the defendant has submitted that since the order dated 13.2.1980 of the then A.C. 2nd Grade qua correction of the revenue entries is legal in the eyes of law, thereupon, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief and has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Above all the defendant has submitted that since the order dated 13.2.1980 of the then A.C. 2nd Grade qua correction of the revenue entries is legal in the eyes of law, thereupon, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief and has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The defendant has also filed the counter claim to the effect that she be declared as owner in possession of the suit land firstly on the ground that she by operation of law of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reform Act; and in the alternative as she had been coming in possession of the suit land, since June 25, 1975, openly, peacefully, continuously, and, adverse to the rights of the plaintiff, hence, to be declared owner by way of adverse possession having perfected her rights, as such. The defendant has further submitted that as part of the suit land bearing Khasra No.2085/1 was forcibly occupied upon by Ram Rattan, Prem Lal, Mahant Ram, Harnam Singh, hence, a decree for possession of the said part of the land after demolition of structure thereon be also passed n her favour, for a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiff not to cause interference in the suit land. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has sold 15 biswa out of suit land measuring 12-8 bighas to S/Sh. Ram Rattan, Prem Lal, Mahant Ram, and, Harnam Singh for a consideration of Rs.2000/- as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the entries in the revenue record are wrong and illegal? OPP. 4. Whether the defendant was not inducted as a tenant over the suit land by the plaintiff on payment of rent? OPP. 5. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD 9. Whether the suit has not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 10. Whether the the suit is bad for want of better particulars? OPD. 11. OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD 9. Whether the suit has not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 10. Whether the the suit is bad for want of better particulars? OPD. 11. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by her act, conduct, commission and omission as alleged? OPD. 12. Whether the defendant is entitled to a decree of ownership and possession with respect to the suit land by way of counter claim as alleged? OPD. 13. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed?OPP. 14. Whether the defendant is entitled to possession of land comprise din Khasra No.2085/1 after demolishing the construction, as alleged? OPD 14-A. Whether the order dated 13.2.1980 of Naib Tehsildar effecting the entry of the suit land in favour of the defendant is null and void? OPP. 15. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the defendant/appellant (s) herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed, the, appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendant (s)/appellant (s) herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein she assails the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 2.12.2004, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant (s), against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the respondent/plaintiff having failed to contest the counter claim of the appellant, and, the fact that no written statement thereto was filed, therefore, on the basis of material on record, claim was required to be allowed? 2. Whether keeping in view the subject matter of the controversy, the civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter, especially in view of the bar as contained under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, which debar the jurisdiction of the civil court, because the mutation No.932, Ex.P-3 was attested on 16.9.1986, which order was at no stage was challenged by the respondent/plaintiff. 3. Whether the order, as passed by the Revenue Officer/Naib Tehsildar dated 13.2.1980, Ex.P-4 having not been assailed within the period of one years by way of filing the appeal or revision, nor this order was challenged before the civil court within one year, therefore, the same became final and the parties are bound by the same? 4. Whether the application, as filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC by the appellant for the amendment in the written statement read with Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC has been wrongly rejected and the proposed amendment was not only necessary for determination of all the points of controversy, but even otherwise, liberal approach was required to be adopted by allowing this application? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 6: 8. Apparently, the respondent/plaintiff, neither by filing replication to the written statement nor by instituting any written statement, to, the counter claim, as, enclosed within the written statement, hence, instituted to the plaint, by the aggrieved defendant, rather therethrough, contested the factum of the defendant, acquiring title, by adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, (i) yet the afore omission cannot constrain any conclusion, qua per se thereupon, the aggrieved defendant being entitled, to, rendition, of, affirmative findings qua hers being entitled, to be declared, as owner of the suit khasra number, through, adverse possession. The reason for making the afore conclusion, (ii) is, rested upon the factum, of, apposite issue No.5, extracted hereinabove, rather coming to be struck by the learned trial Court, and, thereon, hence, dis-affirmative findings being recorded. The reason for making the afore conclusion, (ii) is, rested upon the factum, of, apposite issue No.5, extracted hereinabove, rather coming to be struck by the learned trial Court, and, thereon, hence, dis-affirmative findings being recorded. Since, the discharging onus, vis-a-vis, the afore issue was obviously cast, upon, the aggrieved defendant, and, when the anvil of the plaintiff's suit, for possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, stood harboured, upon, the invalidity of an order, borne in Ex.D-4, (iii) wherethrough, the aggrieved defendant was recorded in possession of the suit khasra numbers, (iv) and, with the application whereon the afore order was made, rather not making, any bespeaking qua the defendant claiming correction, of, the revenue entries, appertaining to the suit land, emphatically on anvil of hers acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, through adverse possession, (v) besides when the afore omission is construed, along with, the apposite possession, rather standing obtained under order EX.D-4, exhibits whereof, obviously bespeaks qua the defendant being ordered to be incorporated, in, the apposite column of the jamabandi, appertaining to the suit property, qua his hence, being in possession thereof, and, further more, with the defendant espousing qua prior thereto, hers being inducted as, a, tenant by the plaintiff, upon, the suit khasra number, (vi) thereupon, an obviously inference, is bolstered, qua the aggrieved defendant hence acquiescing qua her purported possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, being squarely harboured upon the espoused factum, of, hers being, a, tenant thereon, (vii) whereupon, hence, the contra therewith plea, of, hers acquiring title thereto, rather by adverse possession being obviously negated, and, rather, a, further accentuated inference, is, drawable qua in hers rather propagating the plea of hers being, in, permissible lawful possession, of, the suit khasra numbers, being in stark negation, of, his holding possession thereof, hence, with an animus possidendi. Consequently, with the afore discharging onus, vis-a-vis, the afore extracted issue, remaining undischarged by the aggrieved defendant, thereupon, reiteratedly, any omission, on the part of the plaintiff, to, aptly contest the afore plea, hence, reared by the defendant in her written statement, wherein, also stood enclosed a counter claim, rather through hers filing, a, replication or a written statement thereto, cannot fillip any inference that, thereupon, the plaintiff hence acquiescing qua the afore propagated relief, reared by the aggrieved defendant. 9. 9. Even though, the afore counter claim, does, contain a plea qua rendition of a decree for possession, by way of demolition, vis-a-vis, khasra No.2085/1, measuring 15 biswas, on anvil, of it being illegally and unathorisedly hence encroached, upon, by one Ram Rattan, Prem Lal, Mahant Ram and Harnam Singh, (a) and, when a part of the suit khasra number hence was propagated by the plaintiff, to be alienated, vis-a-vis, Ram Rattan and, others, (b) and, when oral evidence adduced in respect, of, a part of the suit kahsra number, rather being possessed, by Ram Rattan, and others, is proven, through, the oral testification rendered by Ram Rattan and others, (c) and, despite the defendant holding the apt opportunity before the learned trial Court, to move an application, under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, for seeking addition, of, Ram Rattan, Prem Lal, Mahant Ram, and Harnam Singh, in the array of legal combatants, in the apposite lis, and, yet hers at the earliest, despite, holding knowledge, vis-a-vis,the afore erupting controversy, rather failing to, make an appropriate endeavour, before the learned trial Court, (d) thereupon, the belated endeavour, made by the aggrieved defendant, before the learned First Appellate Court, through, hers instituting an application, cast under, Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, hence, seeking therethrough the relief of addition, in, the array of legal contestants of Ram Rattan, Prem Lal, Mahant Ram, and, Harnam Singh, and, also hers seeking relief qua theirs, being prohibited, from interfering in the ownership and possession, of, the suit land, was, apparently and justifiably discountenanced, by the learned First Appellate Court. Consequently, also when the judgment, and, decree rendered on 16.2.1995, and, enclosed in Ex.D-2 and D-3, against the afore persons, in a suit instituted thereagainst, by the aggrieved defendant, rather was entirely unworkable, vis-a-vis, the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property, nor also, hence the afore exhibits operate, as estoppel or as constructive res judicata, vis-a-vis, her rights in the suit property, (e) given hers remaining unimpleaded in the apposite suit, whereon Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3 were rendered, (f) pre-eminently also when hence the plaintiff, had, omitted to claim any relief against the afore. In sequel, both the afore substantial question of law No.1 and 4 are decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and, against the defendant/ appellant (s). Substantial question of law No.2 & 3. 10. In sequel, both the afore substantial question of law No.1 and 4 are decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and, against the defendant/ appellant (s). Substantial question of law No.2 & 3. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved defendant, has contended, with much vigour before this Court, (i) that since the order of mutation serialized at No.932, and, enclosed in D-4, hence, stood attested on 13.2.1980, and, it remaining unchallenged within, the statutorily ordained period of limitation, (ii) thereupon, the suit being time barred, and, also the statutory embargo, borne in the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, against, the exercise of jurisdiction, by the civil court also being attracted, (iii) and, hence, the concurrently pronounced decrees against the aggrieved defendants rather holding no force, (iv) given theirs being beyond, the jurisdictional competence, of, both the learned courts below. However, the afore addressed argument (s) before this Court by the counsel, for the aggrieved defendant, is, eroded of its vigour, (v) given the order of mutation, borne in Ex.D-4, and, attested on 16.9.1986 rather coming, to, in transgression of the mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 100 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, hence rendered by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, than, by the statutorily empowered Assistant Collector 1st Grade, (vi) thereupon, with the afore order being gripped, with, a vice of jurisdictional disempowerment, hence, it acquires no validity, (vii) rather it is construable to be nonest, and, thereupon, it is challengeable, only, since the acquisition of knowledge qua its making, by the plaintiff, and, when the order challenged in the civil suit, does not, display that in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, its making the plaintiff, hence, recorded her presence before the officer rendering its, (viii) thereupon, when the plaintiff rather proving qua, upon, hers acquiring knowledge, vis-a-vis, its making, hers thereafter within the apposite statutorily prescribed period of limitation, as aptly computable therefrom, hence, instituting the extant suit, hence renders her suit to be maintainable, (ix) and, also the afore void order rendered, by the Assistant Collect 2nd Grade, does not attract, the apposite statutory bar, enclosed in the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, against, the exercise of jurisdiction by civil courts, against any orders recorded, by the statutorily contemplated authority (ies), under, the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Both the afore substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, and, against the defendant/ appellant (s). 11. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by both the learned Courts below, 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. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the judgments, and, decrees impugned before this Court are maintained and affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.