JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner seeks review of judgment in Rajinder Kumar Sood vs. Om Prakash Sood, [CMPMO No. 286 of 2018, decided on 4.10.2021] i) For convenience, petitioner is hereinafter referred to as the review petitioner and the respondent as review respondent. For sake of clarity, it may be mentioned here that review petitioner was actually the respondent and review respondent was the petitioner in the aforesaid case. The aforementioned judgment allowed an application moved by the review respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’). Consequently, the plaint instituted by review petitioner was rejected. ii) Review petitioner challenged the decision in Rajinder Kumar Sood (supra) before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 15161/2022. The SLP was dismissed as withdrawn with following order passed on 12.12.2022:- “Mr. Viplav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is in the teeth of a full Bench of the same Court which takes a different view. However, there is no reference to the judgment of the full Bench. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to bring the judgment of the full Bench to the notice of the Court by way of a review. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a review. We also make it clear that, in any case, the review is unsuccessful, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order as well.” The SLP was dismissed as withdrawn in view of statement made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that:- (i) The impugned order (sought to be reviewed presently) is in the teeth of a Full Bench of the same Court which takes a different view. There is no reference to the judgment of the Full Bench in the impugned order; (ii) Learned counsel for the review petitioner sought permission to withdraw the SLP with liberty to bring the judgment of the Full Court to the notice of this Court by way of a review petition. In view of above statement of the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file review petition. In view of above statement of the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file review petition. It was also observed that in case the appellant (present review petitioner) remained unsuccessful in the review petition it would be open for him to challenge that order as well. It is in the above background, present petition has been filed seeking review of Rajinder Kumar Sood (supra) 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner submitted that application moved by the review respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC could not have been allowed and consequently plaint filed by the review petitioner could not have been rejected in Rajinder Kumar Sood (supra) on the ground that there was bar under Section 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (in short the ‘Act’) from entertaining the civil suit. In view of law laid down in Chuhniya Devi vs. Jindu Ram, [1991 (1) Sim. L.C. 223] read with Sections 37(3) & 46 of the Act, the civil suit instituted by the review petitioner for assailing the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by Assistant Collector Grade (in short ‘A.C. Grade’), Theog, District Shimla was maintainable. In support of above submission, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner placed specific reliance upon following conclusion drawn in Chuhniya Devi (supra) :- “Our answer, therefore, is: (a) that an order made by the competent authority under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, is open to challenge before a civil court to the extent that it relates to matters falling within the ambit of section 37(3) and section 46 of that Act; and (c) the civil court has no jurisdiction to go into any question connected with the conferment of proprietary rights under section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, except in a case where it is found that the statutory authorities envisaged by that Act had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where the provisions of the act had not been complied with.” Learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner submitted that: the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the A.C. II nd Grade correcting entry qua possession in the record of rights in favour of the review respondent in respect of the suit property could have been challenged by the review petitioner before the Civil Court. Such challenge is protected under Sections 37(3) and 46 of the Act. This facet of the matter was not considered in Rajinder Kumar Sood while allowing review respondent’s application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC, hence the review petition. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the review respondent urged that Chuhniya Devi (supra) was primarily a case involving dispute between landlord and tenant concerning conferment of proprietary rights. The decision has no applicability to the facts of the present case wherein both the parties are joint owners of the suit property; The order challenged by the review petitioner in the Civil Court was passed by A.C. II nd Grade on 13.07.2012. Under this order the A.C. II nd Grade had corrected the existing revenue entry qua the possession of the suit property in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. The corrected revenue entry reflected the spot position as on date. It was within the jurisdiction of A.C. II nd Grade to have passed such order in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 37(1) & (2) of the Act. The Civil Courts do not have jurisdiction to pass such kind of orders. The order passed by the A.C. II nd Grade was appealable under Section 14 of the Act. The review petitioner exercised ‘doctrine of election’ and assailed the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the A.C. II nd Grade before the appellate authority. The appeal is still pending as on date. Having regard to ‘doctrine of election’ and having filed appeal against the order dated 13.07.2012, the review petitioner cannot be permitted to simultaneously institute the civil suit against the same order. Therefore, there is no error in the judgment sought to be reviewed by the review petitioner whereby the review respondent’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed. 4. Therefore, there is no error in the judgment sought to be reviewed by the review petitioner whereby the review respondent’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed. 4. Consideration: 4(i) Review petitioner’s main plank for seeking review of Rajinder Kumar Sood (supra) is the decision rendered in Chuhniya Devi (supra) Following questions had come for consideration before the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Chuhniya Devi (supra) :- “These appeals have come up before this Bench for an answer to the question whether the civil court has jurisdiction, in respect of an order, (a) made by the competent authority under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, and (b) of conferment of proprietary rights under section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1972.” The above questions were answered as under:- “Our answer, therefore, is: (a) that an order made by the competent authority under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, is open to challenge before a civil court to the extent that it relates to matters falling within the ambit of section 37(3) and section 46 of that Act; and (c) the civil court has no jurisdiction to go into any question connected with the conferment of proprietary rights under section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, except in a case where it is found that the statutory authorities envisaged by that Act had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where the provisions of the act had not been complied with.” 4(ii) Parties to the instant litigation are not landlord and tenant. They are joint owners of the suit property. Learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner emphasized that in light of Chuhniya Devi (supra) an order passed by the competent revenue authority under the Act is open to challenge before a Civil Court to the extent it relates to matters falling within the ambit of Section 37(3) & 46 of the Act. Section 37 including its sub-sections (1), (2) & (3) have been noticed in Rajinder Kumar Sood (supra) . This Section is again reproduced hereinafter for the sake of convenience:- “37. Section 37 including its sub-sections (1), (2) & (3) have been noticed in Rajinder Kumar Sood (supra) . This Section is again reproduced hereinafter for the sake of convenience:- “37. Determination of dispute.- (1) If during the making, revision or preparation of any record or in the course of any enquiry under this Chapter, a dispute arises as to any matter of which an entry is to be made in a record or in a register of mutations, a Revenue Officer may of his own motion or on the application of any party interested, but subject to the provisions of the next following section and after such inquiry as he thinks fit, determine the entry to be made as to that matter. (2) If in any such dispute the Revenue Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties thereto is in possession of any property to which the dispute relates, he shall ascertain through the Gram Panchayat constituted under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No. 4 of 1994) or any other agency so prescribed by the Financial Commissioner or by summary inquiry who is the person best entitled to the property and shall by order direct that, that person be put in possession thereof, and that an entry in accordance with that order, be made in the record or register. (3) A direction of a Revenue Officer under subsection (2) shall be subject to any decree or order which may be subsequently passed by any Court of competent jurisdiction.” As per Section 37, in case during the making, revision or preparation of any record or in the course of any enquiry under the Chapter, a dispute arises as to any matter of which an entry is to be made in a record or in a register of mutations, then a Revenue Officer may (i) of his own motion or (ii) on application of any interested party, after following the procedure prescribed in the Section and after conducting inquiry as he thinks fit, determine the entry to be made in this regard. If in any dispute the Revenue Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties is in possession of the property to which the dispute relates, he shall ascertain through the Gram Panchayat or any other prescribed agency or by summary inquiry as to who is the person entitled to the property and by order direct such person to be put in possession thereof. An entry in that regard is required to be made in the record or register. Such direction of the Revenue Officer is subject to any decree or order that may be subsequently passed by any Court of competent jurisdiction. 4(iii) In the instant case, review respondent moved an application before the A.C. II nd Grade seeking correction of the revenue entry for recording his possession over the suit property on the basis of existing spot position. Jurisdiction to entertain such application & to pass orders thereupon vested exclusively in the Revenue Officer. The Civil Courts do not have such jurisdiction in view of Section 171 of the Act, relevant portion of which reads as under:- “171. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers.- Except as otherwise provided by this Act- (1) A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter which the State Government or a Revenue Officer is empowered by this Act, to dispose of or take cognizance of the manner in which the State Government or any Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act; and in particular- (2) a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely- (i) to (iv) xxx xxx xxx (v) the framing of a record-of-rights or periodical record or the preparation, signing or attestation of any of the documents included in such a record; (v-a) xxx xxx xxx (vi) the correction of any entry in a record-of-rights, periodical record or register of mutations;” … The A.C. II nd Grade upon whom the jurisdiction is vested for correcting record of rights, exercised his power under Section 37, conducted a summary inquiry, found possession of review respondent over the suit property and accordingly passed an order on 13.07.2012 on the basis of which mutation No. 15 was entered and attested in favour of the review respondent on 11.09.2012. It is not the case of review petitioner that A.C. II nd Grade was not competent to exercise the jurisdiction in passing order dated 13.07.2012 or that the order was passed without jurisdiction. 4(iv) It was for the review petitioner to have chosen the remedy which he wanted to avail at the relevant time against order dated 13.07.2012. It is admitted position that the aforesaid order was subject to challenge under section 14 of the Act which provided remedy of appeal against the aforesaid order. The review petitioner chose to exercise his right by availing the statutory remedy of appeal provided to him under Section 14 of the Act. He ‘elected’ to opt for the said remedy. His revenue appeal against the order dated 13.07.2012 instituted prior to the filing of civil suit is still stated to be pending adjudication before the competent revenue authority. That being the position, he could not have simultaneously instituted the civil suit laying challenge to the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Revenue Officer. This aspect has been elaborated in the judgment sought to be reviewed. 4(v) It is not a case where the review petitioner had filed the civil suit that he be declared to be in possession of the suit property. The civil suit had been filed only for challenging the order passed by A.C. II nd Grade against which, as noticed earlier, review petitioner had taken recourse to statutory remedy of appeal before filing the suit and which appeal is still pending adjudication. The A.C. II nd Grade in his order dated 13.07.2012 had only recorded the possession of the review respondent over the suit property. Consequentially mutation was attested on that basis. Question of title was not involved before the revenue authority. In fact, this is just one of the reasons assigned in Rajinder Kumar Sood (supra) for allowing application moved by review respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 5. The reliance placed upon Chuhniya Devi (supra) does not advance the case of review petitioner. In fact, the points being urged now specifically on the basis of Chuhniya Devi (supra) have been otherwise deliberated in the judgment sought to be reviewed as these points had been raised by learned counsel for the review petitioner previously by relying upon some judgments which were based upon Chuhniya Devi (supra) . In fact, the points being urged now specifically on the basis of Chuhniya Devi (supra) have been otherwise deliberated in the judgment sought to be reviewed as these points had been raised by learned counsel for the review petitioner previously by relying upon some judgments which were based upon Chuhniya Devi (supra) . Portion of judgment (sought to be reviewed) relevant to the context is as under:- “In the instant case, as observed earlier, the basic order challenged in the civil suit by the plaintiff was dated 13.7.2012. This order was passed by A.C. IInd Grade. The order was passed on an application moved by the defendant under Section 37 of the Act. Section 171 of the Act bars jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of matters falling within jurisdiction of the revenue officers. Correction of revenue entry in record of rights is within the domain and jurisdiction of revenue officers in terms of Chapter IV of the Act. In the civil suit the plaintiff alleged that he was not served in the application moved by defendant under Section 37 of the Act and that the order was passed behind his back. Assuming that on these grounds, plaintiff could have filed the civil suit challenging the order dated 13.7.2012, then also, the fact remains that on these very assertions the plaintiff has also filed statutory appeal under Section 14 of the Act. Plaintiff could not simultaneously resort to two parallel remedies on same cause of action on same set of facts against the same order. Having availed statutory remedy against order dated 13.7.2012, plaintiff could not file civil suit on the same cause of action. Having chosen to avail the statutory remedy which the plaintiff is still pursuing, civil suit filed by him was not maintainable. It would be apt to refer to (2007) 6 SCC 120 , titled Arunima Baruah versus Union of India and Others, where the Supreme Court following the judgment in Jai Singh vs. Union of India reported in (1977) 1 SCC 1 deprecated pursuing two parallel remedies by the parties in respect of one subject-matter and held as under:- “18. There is another doctrine which cannot also be lost sight of. There is another doctrine which cannot also be lost sight of. The court would not ordinarily permit a party to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter…….” 5(vii) Conclusion (a) Plaintiff in the instant civil suit prayed for declaring the order dated 13.7.2012 as illegal, null and void. (b) Order dated 13.7.2012 was passed by the A.C. IInd Grade in an application moved by the defendant under Section 37 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act 1953. In the application, defendant had prayed for correction of existing revenue entry, showing the defendant and his brothers including the plaintiff-the joint owners of the suit land, to be in joint possession of the same. Defendant asserted in the application that he was in exclusive possession over the suit land. The A.C. IInd Grade allowed defendant’s application vide order dated 13.7.2012. Thereby revenue entry of possession over the suit land was corrected in defendant’s favour. The A.C. IInd Grade had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 13.7.2012. (c) Plaint does not raise any question of title. It only challenges order dated 13.7.2012 passed by A.C. IInd Grade. A.C. IInd Grade had not decided any question of title under order dated 13.7.2012. Defendant had not raised any question of title in his application moved under Section 37 of the Act before the revenue officer. Plaintiff and defendant both continue to be joint owners of the suit land. The possession over suit land was however found by A.C. IInd Grade to be that of the defendant. Correction of revenue entry to this effect was accordingly ordered on 13.7.2012. (d) Plaintiff had statutory remedy under Section 14 of H.P. Land Revenue Act against correction of revenue entry ordered on 13.7.2012. Plaintiff availed this statutory remedy and challenged the order before the Collector. Appeal filed by him is pending adjudication. Plaintiff is pursuing this remedy. (e) Having elected to avail statutory remedy against the order dated 13.7.2012, plaintiff cannot simultaneously institute civil suit against the same order dated 13.7.2012. In the facts of the case, two parallel remedies against the same order, on same cause of action on same set of grounds cannot be simultaneously resorted to. Plaintiff is pursuing the statutory remedy of appeal, which is pending adjudication before the revenue courts. In the facts of the case, two parallel remedies against the same order, on same cause of action on same set of grounds cannot be simultaneously resorted to. Plaintiff is pursuing the statutory remedy of appeal, which is pending adjudication before the revenue courts. (f) Plaintiff has already filed another civil suit No. 67-1/S of 95/03 for partition and rendition of accounts against the defendant and others with respect to various parcels of lands/properties jointly owned by plaintiff, defendant and others. Suit property involved in the present case is also part of suit property involved in civil suit No. 67-1/S of 95/93. Question of title is raised in that civil suit (67-1/S of 95/93), which was partly decreed by learned District Judge on 16.9.2000. RFA No. 365/2000 filed by the plaintiff arising out of this judgment and decree is as yet pending adjudication. In terms of interim orders passed in the RFA No. 365/2000, parties have already been restrained from creating third party rights over the subject matter of suit. The subject matter of RFA No. 365/2000 includes property involved in the instant suit. The injunction order passed in RFA No. 365/2000 is already operating with respect to the property involved in the present suit and is also applicable to the parties herein. For all the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed. The application moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. The order passed by learned trial court on 11.7.2018 in CMA No. 28-6 of 2018/16 in Civil Suit No. 43/1 of 17/14 is set aside. Consequently, plaint is ordered to be rejected. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also disposed of. In view of the above discussion, no ground for review is made out. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.