RAJ KUMARI DEVI Vs. MURALI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. Mahesh Prasad, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties at length on different dates. Admittedly, the present civil revision application is barred by limitation, having been filed on 8.2.2008 against the order dated 10.8.1999 passed by learned Sub-Judge-V, Sasaram. Therefore, I.A. No. 919 of 2008 under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short Limitation Act) has been filed on behalf of petitioners with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the present civil revision application. By an order dated 4,3.2008, the limitation matter was directed to be considered at the time of hearing of the civil revision application at the admission stage. By an order dated 9.12.2009 passed in the present proceeding, notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties in main civil revision application as also in the limitation matter (I.A. No. 919 of 2008). Notices have been validly served upon the opposite parties and in response to notice, opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 have appeared through a lawyer by filing their duly executed Vakalatnama and are resisting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in the civil revision application as also in the limitation matter. Hence, with the consent of the parties, the main civil revision application as also limitation matter have been taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The present civil revision application has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners challenging the validity and legality of order dated 10.8.1999 passed in Title Suit No. 135 of 1969, by learned Sub-Judge-V, Sasaram, whereby it has been held that the aforesaid suit is not maintainable.

(3.) The short facts relevant for the purpose of determining the issues involved in the present application are portrayed hereinbelow: The plaintiffs-petitioners brought Title Suit No. 135 of 1969, in the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Sasaram seeking a decree for partition of the suit properties. During the pendency of the aforesaid title suit, a notification under Section 3 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act) was issued by the competent authority with respect to the area concerned, where the suit properties are situate, In view of the issuance of aforesaid notification, a petition was filed by the defendants-opposite parties that suit should abate in terms of Section 4(c) of the Consolidation Act. After hearing the parties the suit was ordered to have abated by an order dated 6.1.1978 (Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit) passed by learned 3rd Subordinate Judge, Sasaram.