' The petitioners are the owners of land occupied by Muhammad Shafi respondent No, 2 as a tenant. They filed an ejectment suit against respondent No, 2 in the Court of learned Assistant Collector II-Grade, Shujabad which was decreed on 29-12-1980. Respondent No, 2 filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Assistant Collector II-Grade Mich was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector. Shujabad vide is order dated 13-4-1981 on the short ground that the ejectment suit was of instituted by the petitioners within the prescribed time inasmuch as they should have filed the suit before 15th of November, 1980 whereas they d filed the suit on 15-11-1980.
The petitioners have challenged the afore-mentioned order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on the ground that they had filed the suit within the prescribed time because the Court was closed on 14th of November 1980, which being Friday it was a public holiday and as such the petitioners were entitled to institute the suit on the following day i,e, on 15-11-1980 on the reopening of the Court.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No, 2 who has appeared in Court in pursuance of a notice issued to respondent No, 2 has frankly conceded that the petitioners were entitled to file the suit for ejectment against respondent No, 2 on 15-11-1980 and the view taken by the learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector that the petitioners suit was barred by time is no legally tenable. He has stated that section 4 of the Limitation Act whic is also applicable to the suit for ejectment instituted in the Revenue Courts is quite clear in this connection. Learned counsel for respondent No, 2 however, has tried to assail the order of ejectment on the ground that the Assistant Collector H- Grade had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's suit. As the plea of want of jurisdiction now sought to be raised by the learned counsel was not taken up before the learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector in appeal, it is not possible to consider it at this stage particularly when the impugned order was passed on the so ground that the suit for ejectment filed by the petitioners was barred by time.
3. In view of the legal position stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and order dated 13-4-1981 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector respondent No. 1 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Having regard to the case no order as to cost.