PANCHANAN BHANDARI Vs. KALIPRASAD BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five Rules have been issued against order no. 30 dated 7. 7. 76 passed in connection with Title Suit Nos. 532, 533, 537, 553 and 572 of 1975. The aforesaid suits were filed against the petitioners of the instant Rules by opposite party no. 1 for declaration of title, recovery of possession, mesne profits and injunction. The petitioners set up defence to the effect that they were bargadars and the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the question. Accordingly applications under section 21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 were filed. The learned Munsif decided to try the five suits analogously. In view of the defence raised about the jurisdiction of the court a preliminary issue was framed and disposed of by order no. 30 dated 7. 7. 76 which governed all the five suits. By the impugned order the learned Munsif overruled the petitioners' objection and held that the suits were quite maintainable in his court. In doing so the learned Munsif observed :

(2.) THE second line of reasoning adopted by the learned Munsif is that there is distinction between a suit and a proceeding and that the word 'proceeding' appearing in sub-section (3)of section 21 of the West Bengal Land reforms Act does not include a suit and as such the civil court dealing with a suit has jurisdiction to decide whether a person is a bargadar or not.

(3.) THE second limb of the learned munsif s reasoning must be put on one aide in view of the decision of this court in Radha Raman Purkayat v. Sadhan Chandra Barik-1977 C. H. N. 76-where Borooah, J. held that the word 'proceeding' in sub-section (3) of section 21 of the Act is wide enough to cover a suit. In coming to this conclusion His Lordship observed: