VIDYA DEVI Vs. GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revisions - one by the defendant - State of Bihar and the other by the private defendant - arising out of the same order have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order. By the impugned order the plaintiffs' suit has been admitted as being in continuation of the previous suit. The relevant facts are as follows.

(2.) On 19-8-82, 1.27 acres lands of plot No. 2003, Khata 0.523 at Dumraon was settled with Smt. Vidya Devi, petitioner of C. R. No. 1495 of 1995, by Government order. While 1.145 acres land was purportedly settled for agricultural purposes, 0.125 acre land was purportedly settled for residential purposes. Gauri Shanker Prasad Shrivastava, the original plaintiff (opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 were added as co-plaintiffs later on 8-4-88), instituted Title Suit No. 39 of 1984 before the 1st Munsif, Buxar, after giving notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a declaration that the settlement was forged, fabricated and fraudulent and that the lands in question being used for public purposes, the State Government had no right to settle the same with an individual. The plaintiff alleged that the husband of the settlee, who was Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board earlier and presently a member of the Bihar Public Service Commission, was a rich man possessing residential houses at Patna and village Ariaon as well as agricultural lands. The plaintiff averred that the land in question, which was recorded in the survey records as Kaisar-e-Hind, was being used for public purposes, for holding community meetings, stay of marriage parties, playground for children and so on. The suit was valued at Rs. 200 /-. On objection by the defendants to decide the issues relating to suit valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit as preliminary issues, the Court after taking evidence came to the conclusion that the suit lay beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction and accordingly passed an order on 30-8-93 for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code for presentation in the proper Court. The plaint was actually returned to the plaintiffs with necessary endorsement of the Court on 13-9-93. The plaint was thereafter re-filed in the court of Subordinate Judge, Buxar, on 27-9-93 where it was registered as Title Suit No. 169 of 1993.

(3.) A controversy arose as to whether the suit had been filed with respect to 1.27 acres land as mentioned in the Government order dated 19-8-82 or with respect to only 0.27 acre. Ultimately, by order dated 25-6-94, reviewing its earlier order dated 9-3-94, the court held that the suit would be confined to 0.27 acre land as per the description of the land in the notice under Section 80 of the Code. The aforesaid order does not seem to have been challenged by the plaintiffs. The defendants also objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation and absence of fresh notice under Section 80 C.P.C. The court below by the impugned order dated 27-7-95 held that the present suit i.e. Title Suit No. 169 of 1993 had been filed in continuation of the previous suit i.e. Title Suit No. 39 of 1984 and, therefore, no question of limitation was involved nor there was any necessity to give fresh notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court also rejected the defendants' plea that Article 100 of the Limitation Act was applicable.