STATE OF PUNJAB INDIA Vs. MANGAL SINGH NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Arrah, dated 24-6-1953, holding that the petitioner, the State of Punjab (India), is included within the expression "any other person" occurring in Section 13, Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (70 of 1951).

(2.) The plaintiff, opposite party, who is admittedly a displaced person, has filed an application under the aforementioned Act, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act, for recovery of certain debt due from the petitioner. Two suits of like nature had also been brought in the same Court against the petitioner. The State of Punjab filed written statements in all; the suits, and the three suits were, made analogous and certain preliminary points going to the root of the jurisdiction of the. Court were dealt with together by the order in question. In the other two suits, the Court below has held that, as there was no notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., those suits were not maintainable. In regard to the present suit, it has been held that no such plea was taken in the written statement and, therefore, that plea cannot be said to be a bar to the suit. A further point was taken in the written statements to the effect that the State of Punjab cannot be brought within the expression "any other person", and, therefore, the suits were not maintainable. As the other suits were held to be not maintainable on the ground of want of notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., that point arose only in the present suit. The suit with which, I am concerned in the present petition is Money Suit No: 13 of 1952, pending in the subordinate Judge's 2nd Court, Arrah.

(3.) Learned Government Advocate, who appeared in support of the application, has sub-mitted two points for the consideration of this Court, namely (1) that the State of Punjab is not a person within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act; and (2) that the Court below wad wrong in holding that the bar of Section 80, Civil P. C., had not been pleaded in the written statement of the petitioner in the present suit namely, Money Suit No. 13 of 1952.