KARMA URAON Vs. BURAIK DEBI DOYAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these second appeals by the defendants the substantial question raised is whether the plaintiff's suits to recover arrears of rent for the Sambat years 1960, 1961, 1962 should have been dismissed as being in contravention of the provisions of Section 44 A. of the Chota Nagpur Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act, 1879. Section 44 A, which was added by Bengal Act V of 1903, runs thus: "Where a landlord has instituted a suit, or applied for certificate under Section 155, against a raiyat or a Mundari khunt-kattidar, for the recovery of any rent of his tenancy, the landlord shall not institute another suit or apply for another such certificate against him for the recovery of any rent of that tenancy until after six months from the date of the institution or making of the previous suit or application."

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff, in March 1906, sued for the rents of 1959 to 1961, and alleged that some rent for 1962 had been deposited by the defendants. Issues were framed, and the 18 May 1906 was fixed for hearing. On that day, the Deputy Collector recorded the order. "Plaintiff absent, struck off, Section 62 Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act." The same day the plaintiff applied for restoration, and asserted that he and the defendants had been present at the time of hearing, but the Deputy Collector declined to accede to the application. The plaintiff, then, in June 1906, without waiting for the expiration of the period of six months mentioned in Section 44 A, instituted the fresh suits giving rise to the present appeals. Thereupon, the Deputy Collector held the suits to be barred by the provisions of this section, but on appeal the Judicial Commissioner has held that the suits were not barred.

(3.) The contentions raised by the learned Vakil for the appellants-defendants are these--(1) That the second suits were barred by Section 44A of the Act--(2) That the order of the 18th May 1906, under Section 62, was in error, and that it was in reality an order under the second clause of Section 77.--(3) That the plaintiff should have pursued his other remedies under Secs.66, 67 of the Act and by way of review.--(4) That, at any rate, the fresh suits for the arrears of 1962 were incompetent.