[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Janak Kumar Singh vs Amresh Mohan Lala on 26 August, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025: JHHC: 26148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 89 of 2016
Janak Kumar Singh, son of Late Brij Nandan Prasad Singh, resident of
Manoram Nagar, Luby Circular Road, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad
... ... Defendant/Appellant/Appellant
Versus
1. Amresh Mohan Lala, son of Late Radha Mohan Lala
2. Rita Lala, wife of Late Shiv Mohan Lala
3. Satyam Lala, son of Late Shiv Mohan Lala
4. Ranu Sinha, daughter of Late Shiv Mohan Lala
5. Rakhi Sinha, daughter of Late Shiv Mohan Lala
6. Purnima Sahay, daughter of Late Shiv Mohan Lala
All resident of H.E. School, P.O., P.S. and District Dhanbad
... ... Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Abhi, Advocate
Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate
---
th
24/26 August 2025 Lastly heard on 17th July 2025.
This appeal has been filed under Section 87(2) of the Chhota Nagpur
Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CNT Act‘) against the
judgment dated 09.12.2015 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 03/2015 by the
learned District Judge-VI, Dhanbad declining to interfere with the order
dated 18.01.2007 passed by the learned Revenue Officer, Dhanbad in
CNT Case No. 15 of 2006 and dismissing the appeal as infructuous on the
ground that as per proviso to Section 87 of the CNT Act, the Revenue
Courts are precluded to decide an issue which is being decided by a
competent court of civil jurisdiction and that the lis agitated in case No.
15/2006 and also in the present appeal is already being contested in Title
1
2025: JHHC: 26148
Suit No. 194/2015 and the property involved in the present proceedings
and in Title Suit No. 194/2015 are one and the same.
2. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 03.12.2018 on the
following substantial questions of law: –
i. Whether Section-5 of Limitation Act has any application
with respect to a suit or original proceeding and if the
answer is in negative the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad had
any jurisdiction to entertain the CNT Case No.15/2006
which was admittedly barred by the law of Limitation and
the subsequent order including order dated 18/01/2006 is
illegal ab initio void and without jurisdiction?
ii. Whether the Court of appeal below without any materials
available on record merely on presumption that a title suit is
pending before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction
declared the appeal infructuous without examining if the
party in appeal are also party in the suit and subject matter
and reliefs sought for in both the proceeding is same and
similar?
iii. Whether the court of appeal below has committed a
serious error raising a substantial question of law by not
deciding the appeal filed under the provision of Section 87
of the C.N.T. Act challenging the order purportedly passed
under Section 89 of the C.N.T. Act which relates to the
entry made in the record of rights or for its correction but
not for declaration of title and the suit which is alleged to
have been filed in Civil Court if specifically for declaration
of title and confirmation of possession and injunction which
is too not against the respondents against whom the
appellant was seeking relief?
3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, while giving the
foundational background of the case, has submitted that the appellant had
purchased the property by virtue of two registered sale deeds dated
29.09.1983 and 27.06.1986. They had preferred an application under
Section 89 of the CNT Act for correction of the record of rights which
was registered as Case No. 1863/1986 and the order making correction in
the record of rights was passed in favour of the appellant and the entry of
2
2025: JHHC: 26148
the name of private respondents were directed to be expunged. The record
of rights was finally published on 21.02.1996.
4. After expiry of about 10 years, the respondents herein preferred a
suit under Section 87 of the CNT Act seeking correction of record of
rights and a petition was also filed seeking condonation of delay under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was allowed vide order dated
20.09.2006 and the final order was passed by the Settlement Officer
deleting the name of the appellant and incorporating the name of the
respondents on 18.01.2007. The proceeding was ex-parte.
5. On 02.01.2015, the appellant herein preferred appeal against the
said order passed by the Settlement Officer dated 18.01.2007; delay in
filing the appeal was also condoned and ultimately, the final order was
passed on 09.12.2015 by the learned District Judge-VI who held that the
appeal had become infructuous and the proprietary of the impugned order
dated 18.01.2007 passed in case No. 15/2006 shall be guided by the
decision of the Suit No. 194/2015 and ultimately the appeal was
dismissed.
6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, while referring to the 1st
substantial question of law, has submitted that Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 applies only to appeals and certain applications and not to suits
or original proceedings. He has submitted that since Section 5 of the
Limitation Act has no application to an original suit or proceeding,
therefore, the delay in filing a suit before a Revenue Officer under CNT
Act was barred by limitation. It has been submitted that the Revenue
Court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay and entertain the suit.
Consequently, it is submitted that the order passed by the Court of
Settlement Officer, Dhanbad/Revenue Officer dated 18.01.2007 deleting
the name of the appellant and incorporating the name of the respondents is
illegal, void-ab-initio and the suit itself has been wrongly entertained.
7. The learned senior counsel has referred to Section 87 of the CNT
Act and has submitted that a specific period of limitation of 3 months has
3
2025: JHHC: 26148
been prescribed which commences from the date of certificate of final
publication of the record of rights under sub-section 2 of Section 83 of the
decision of any dispute regarding any entry of record of rights. He has
further referred to Chapter-XVII of the CNT Act, 1908 dealing with
limitation and has referred to Section 230, 230(A) and 231 to submit that
as per Section 230, the provision of Limitation Act shall, so far as they are
not inconsistent with CNT Act, apply to all suits, appeals and applications
under CNT Act. The learned senior counsel has further referred to Section
230(A) to submit that special rule of limitation has been prescribed for
certain applications and suits before a Revenue Officer and it has been
provided that notwithstanding any provision of the Indian Limitation Act,
interalia, where a suit has been instituted under Section 87 within 3
months from the date of final publication of record of rights and any
person is thereafter added or substituted as a party to such an application
or suit, the application or the suit shall, as regard to such person, be
deemed for the purpose of limitation to have been made or instituted on
the date upon which it was made or instituted by the original applicant or
plaintiff against the original defendant. The learned senior counsel
submits that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not refer to suit and
therefore Section 5 has no applicability to a suit filed under Section 87 of
the CNT Act.
8. The learned senior counsel has thereafter referred to the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Tilkeshwar Singh
@ Tilkeshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 2004
SCC OnLine Patna 289 and has submitted that a similar issue arose in
connection with the suit filed under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act
as to whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act has any applicability. He has
submitted that in the said judgment, a reference was made to the earlier
judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in the Case of Kunti
Kumari @ Manju Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 1998 (3) PLJR
490 wherein similar issue was decided that settlement authority had no
4
2025: JHHC: 26148
power to condone the delay in filing suit under Section 106 of the Bihar
Tenancy Act. The learned counsel submits that the provision under Bihar
Tenancy Act and particularly Section 106 is pari-materia with that of the
Section 87 of the CNT Act. He has referred to paragraph 11, 12, 13 and 14
of the aforesaid judgment to submit that Sections 3, 5 and 29 deals with
the provision of the Limitation Act and it has been ultimately held that
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to a suit under Section
106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. Ultimately, in paragraph 33 of the
aforesaid judgment, it was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was
not applicable under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act and therefore
any suit filed beyond the period of limitation was not maintainable.
9. With respect to the 2nd and 3rd substantial question of law, the
learned senior counsel for the appellant has referred to the Full Bench
Judgment passed in the case of Paritosh Maity v. Ghasiram Maity
reported in 1986 SCC OnLine Pat 243 and has submitted that in the said
judgment, the provision of Sections 87 and 258 of the CNT Act have been
considered and it has been held that if a person resorts to filing a suit
under Section 87 of the CNT Act, then for an identical lis, Section 258
would bar a further resort to the civil courts except on the ground of fraud
or want of jurisdiction. The learned senior counsel submits that the suit
under section 87 of the C.N.T. Act was filed by the private respondents
which was entertained after a period of 10 years and it was allowed after
condoning delay and therefore, the impugned order, holding that the
parties would be governed by the pending suit, is not in accordance with
law.
10. The learned senior counsel has also relied upon the judgment
passed by this Court in SA No. 186 of 2006 (Kali Mahto @ Kali Charan
Mahto & Anr. vs. Chandra Kishore Prasad Mahto) decided on
04.01.2022 and has referred to paragraph 9 thereof, which in turn has
referred to the judgment passed in the case of Paritosh Maity (supra), and
has submitted that it has been clearly held that in the suit preferred under
5
2025: JHHC: 26148
Section 87 of the CNT Act, the Revenue Court do not have power to
adjudicate on the title of the parties when it is related to the issues of
entries made in record of rights after final publication. Once such right
has been adjudicated, a further title suit shall not lie which will be barred
under Section 258 of the CNT Act.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while
referring to the 1st substantial question of law, has referred to the
judgment reported in 1963 BLJR 35 (Nago Sahu vs. Khusilal Sahu &
Others) decided in First Appeal wherein it has been held that in view of
Section 230 of CNT Act, all the provisions of Indian Limitation Act shall
apply to all applications under CNT Act so far as they are not inconsistent
with the said Act. He has submitted that in the said case, it has been held
that under Section 215(5) of CNT Act, orders passed under the Act are
appealable to the Deputy Commissioner. The learned counsel has further
referred to Sections 2(J), 2(L), 3, 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act;
Section 5(2) and Section 9 explanation 1 of CPC and Section 230 of the
CNT Act.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 8 SCC
470 and has referred to paragraph 5 to 8 of the said judgment to submit
that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 was considered and it has
been held in paragraph 6 that it was clear that the provision of Sections 4
to 24 will apply when (i) there is a special or local law which prescribes a
different period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application; and (ii)
the special or local law does not expressly exclude those Sections. He has
submitted that by referring to the said provision, it has been ultimately
held that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act merely
provides for a period within which the application could be filed and that
would not have been sufficient to exclude Sections 4 to 24 of the
Limitation Act because mere provision of a period of limitation, in
howsoever peremptory or imperative language, is not sufficient to
6
2025: JHHC: 26148
displace the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court ultimately held in paragraph 11 that where the legislature
prescribed a special limitation for the purpose of the appeal and the period
of limitation of 60 days was to be computed after taking the aid
of Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, the specific inclusion of
these sections meant that to that extent only the provisions of
the Limitation Act stood extended and the applicability of the other
provisions, by necessary implication stood excluded. and ultimately in
paragraph 12 held that the phrase ‘but not thereafter’ used in the proviso to
sub-section (3) would amount to an express exclusion within the meaning
of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and therefore barred the application
of Section 5 of that Act.
Findings of this Court.
13. As per the undisputed foundational facts apparent from the
materials and the arguments of the parties, the record of rights was finally
published on 21.02.1996 and in the meantime, the appellant having
purchased the suit property through registered sale deed, filed an
application under section 89 of the C.N.T Act, 1908 for correction of the
record of rights being case no. 1863 of 1986 which was allowed in favour
of the appellant. Thereafter, the record of rights was finally published and
then the respondent filed a suit bearing case no. 15 of 2006 under section
87 of the C.N.T. Act for making correction after expiry of more than 10
years from final publication although the prescribed period for filing the
suit under section 87 is 3 months. Since the suit was time barred, an
application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking
condonation of delay in filing the suit and the delay was condoned and
suit was decided in favour of the respondent vide order dated 18.01.2007
and the name of the appellant was deleted and the name of the respondent
was inserted in the record of rights. The appellants herein filed appeal
before the settlement officer and it was numbered as Misc Appeal no. 03
of 2015 challenging the order dated 18.01.2007 passed in suit bearing case
7
2025: JHHC: 26148
no. 15 of 2006 along with a petition seeking condonation of delay which
was condoned but the learned 1st appellate court was of the view that the
appeal had become infructuous and the decision in suit bearing case no.
15 of 2006 will be guided by the decision in the title suit no. 194 of 2015
which was pending in the civil court.
1st substantial question of law.
14. In the aforesaid background, the 1st substantial question of law
relates to whether Section 5 of the limitation act would be applicable for
condonation of delay in filing the suit under section 87 of the CNT Act
before the revenue court as because suit bearing case no. 15 of 2006 was
filed after expiry of more than 10 years from the date of final publication
of the record of rights.
15. For this, few provisions of law are required to be considered.
Important provisions from Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
Section 5(2) “Revenue Court” in sub-section (1) means a Court having
jurisdiction under any local law to entertain suits or other proceedings
relating to the rent, revenue or profits of land used for agricultural
purposes, but does not include a Civil Court having original jurisdiction
under this Code to try such suits or proceedings as being suits or
proceedings of a civil nature.
Important provisions of Limitation Act, 1963
2 (l) “suit” does not include an appeal or an application;
3. Bar of Limitation -(1) Subject to the provisions contained in
sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and
application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed,
although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.–Any appeal or
any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of
Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be
admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant
satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the
appeal or making the application within such period.
Explanation.–The fact that the appellant or the applicant was
misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in
ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause
within the meaning of this section.
8
2025: JHHC: 26148
29. Savings. — (1) Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872).
(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal
or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed
by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period
were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of
determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or
application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in
sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the
extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or
local law.
(3) ………………………………………..
(4) ……………………
Important provisions of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908
87. Institution of suits before Revenue Officer –
(1) In proceedings under this Chapter a suit may be instituted before a
Revenue Officer, at any time within three months from the date of the
certificate for the final publication of the record-of-rights under sub-
section (2) of Section 83 of the decision of any dispute regarding any
entry which a Revenue Officer has made in, or any omission which he
has made from the record [except an entry of a fair rent settled under
the provisions of Section 85 before the final publication of the record-
of-rights] whether such dispute be,-
(a) between the landlord and tenant, or
(b) between landlords of the same or of neighbouring estate, or
(c) between tenant and tenant, or
(d) as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists, or
(e) as to whether land held rent-free is properly so held, or
[(ee) as to any question relating to the title in land or to any interest in
land as between the parties to the suit; or]
(f) as to any other matter;
and the Revenue Officer shall hear and decide the dispute:
Provided that the Revenue Officer may, subject to such rules as may be
made in this behalf under Section 264, transfer any particular case or
class of cases to a competent Civil Court for trial:
9
2025: JHHC: 26148
Provided also that in any suit under this Section, the Revenue Officer
shall not try any issue which has been, or is already, directly and
substantially in issue between the same parties or between parties under
whom they or any of them claim, in proceedings for the settlement of
rent under this Chapter, where such issue has been tried and decided, or
is already being tried, by a Revenue Officer under Section 86 in
proceedings instituted after the final publication of the record-of-rights.
(2) An appeal shall lie, in the prescribed manner and to the prescribed
Officer from decisions under sub-section (1) [and a second appeal to
the High Court shall lie from any decision on appeal of such Officer as
if such decision were an appellate-decree passed by the Judicial
Commissioner under Chapter XVI.]
230. Application of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 – The provisions
of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908) shall, so far as they are
not inconsistent with this Act, apply to all suits, appeals and
applications under this Act.
230A. Special rule of limitation in certain applications and suits
before a Revenue-Officer. – Notwithstanding any of the provisions of
the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908) where an application under
sub-section (3) of Section 85 has been made or a suit under Section 87,
Section 111 (8), Section 130 or Section 252 has been instituted within
three months from the date of final publication of the record-of-rights,
and any person is thereafter, added or substituted as a party to such
application or suit, the application or the suit shall, as regards such
person, be deemed for the purpose of limitation to have been made or
instituted on the date upon which it was made or instituted by the
original applicant or plaintiff against the original defendant.
231. General rule of limitation. – All suits and applications instituted
or made under this Act, for which no period of limitation is provided
elsewhere in this Act, shall be commenced and made respectively
within one year from the date of the accruing of the cause of action:
Provided that there shall be no period of limitation for
applications under Sections 28, 31 [clauses (c) to (f) of Section 33-A]
34, 50, 61, 75, 105 or 121.
Rule 75 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Rules, 1959
75. Appeals under Section 87(1). -(1) Appeals from decisions of
Revenue officers under Section 87(1) shall lie to the Judicial
Commissioner.
10
2025: JHHC: 26148
16. The provision of Section 87 reveals that suit before the revenue
court, interalia, in connection with rectification of record of rights has to
be filed within 3 months and there is no specific provision for extension of
time or for condonation of delay akin to section 5 of the Limitation Act.
As per Section 230 of C.N.T Act, 1908, the provisions of the limitation
Act shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with the Act, apply to all
suits, appeals and applications under the Act.
17. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for Extension of prescribed
period in certain cases and it provides that any appeal or any application,
[other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)], may be admitted after the
prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he
had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the
application within such period. It has also been provided under Section 2
(l) of the Limitation Act itself that “suit” does not include an appeal or an
application. Thus, suit does not include an appeal or an application and
Section 5 does not apply to suits, it only applies to any appeal or an
application. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that Section 5 does not apply even to suits filed before the revenue court
under Section 87 of the C.N.T Act, 1908. The suit under section 87 of the
C.N.T Act, 1908 has to be filed within a period of 3 months as prescribed
under section 87(1) itself. The suit filed in this case was admittedly much
beyond the prescribed period of limitation and hence the suit filed under
section 87 (1) of the C.N.T Act, 1908 was barred by limitation.
18. So far as the judgment reported in (2001) 8 SCC 470 (supra) relied
upon by the respondents is concerned, the judgment was passed in the
context of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which does not deal
with suits. The said judgment does not apply to the facts and
circumstances of this case where the point is as to whether Section 5 of
the Limitation Act would apply to suits filed under Section 87(1) of the
11
2025: JHHC: 26148
CNT Act 1908 which has to be considered in the light of provisions of
CNT Act, 1908 read with Limitation Act, 1963.
19. So far as the judgment reported in 1963 BLJR 35 (supra) relied
upon by the respondents is concerned, it has been simply held therein that
in view of Section 20 of the CNT Act, 1908 all the provisions of Indian
Limitation Act, so far as they are not inconsistent with the CNT Act,
1908, apply to all the suits, appeals and applications under CNT Act,
1908. The said judgment also does not help the respondents in any
manner, inasmuch as, there can be no dispute that Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is not applicable to suits be it a suit under CNT Act, 1908
or a suit before the Civil Court under the general law of the land.
20. Thus, the 1st substantial question of law is answered in favour of
the appellant by holding that Section-5 of Limitation Act does not apply
with respect to a suit under section 87 (1) of the C.N.T Act, 1908 and
the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
being CNT Case No.15/2006 which was barred by the law of Limitation
and consequently, the subsequent order including order dated
18/01/2007 is illegal ab initio void and amounts to improper assumption
of jurisdiction.
21. So far as the 2nd and 3rd substantial questions of law are
concerned, this court is of the considered view that once the suit filed
under section 87 (1) of the C.N.T Act, 1908 itself has been held to be not
maintainable being time barred, any observation by the learned 1st
appellate court has no bearing in the matter. So far as pending civil suit
is concerned, the same has to be decided as per law including the
judgement passed in the case of Paritosh Maity (supra) wherein the
question which came before the Hon’ble Full Bench of Patna High Court
was as follows: –
“Whether a civil suit for declaration of title and confirmation
of possession, challenging, inter alia, the entries in the
revenue records would still be maintainable after the insertion
of Cl. (ee) in S. 87(1), Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, by the
12
2025: JHHC: 26148Chotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1920 (Bihar and
Orissa Act VI of 1920), is the significant common question in
these two connected Second Appeals, referred to the Full
Bench for an authoritative decision”
It has been held in paragraph 16 of the judgement as under: –
“16. The true legal effect of a harmonious reading of Ss. 87
and 258 may, therefore, be noticed. Chapter XII provides for
the record of rights and S. 83 therein deals with the
preliminary publication, the amendment and the final
publication of the record of rights, whilst S. 84 creates certain
rebuttable presumptions in favour of the correctness of the
entries in the record of rights. However, S. 87 provides a
remedy by way of a suit before the Revenue Officer for
resolving any dispute with regard to such an entry in the
record of rights or an omission therefrom. In essence, such a
suit is thus directed as a challenge to the entry or omission in
such a record, but S. 87 further provides that this can be
raised even where such a dispute be with regard to matters
specified in Cls. (a) to (f) of S. 87. In a way, therefore, S. 87
provides a special and additional remedy pertaining to entries
in the revenue records as soon as they are finally published
and certified. That is why the Legislature has chosen to
provide a narrow limitation of three months from the date of
the certificate of the final publication of the record of rights
for bringing such a suit. To my mind, this remedy is not in any
way in derogation of the civil rights of the parties, but indeed
is a special and additional remedy which may be availed of
within a limited period of three months, if a party feels
aggrieved by any of the entries in the record of rights.
However, if such a remedy is availed of by the parties then the
statute now provides an appeal and even a second appeal to
the High Court itself in the very forum of sub-s. (2), S. 87
which inevitably would achieve finality. Thus, if actual resort
has been made to a suit under S. 87 then for an identical lis S.
258 would bar a further resort to the Civil Courts except on
the grounds of fraud or want of jurisdiction. Obviously
enough, to bring in even this limited bar, the lis would have to
be identical. However, as already noticed and it bears
repetition that if no resort has been earlier made to a suit
under S. 87 by the parties, the very precondition for the13
2025: JHHC: 26148application of S. 258 would be absent and it cannot come into
play in such a situation.”
The reference has been answered in paragraph 21 as under: –
“21. To finally conclude, the answer to the question posed at
the outset is rendered in the affirmative both on principle and
precedent. It is held that a civil suit for declaration of title and
confirmation of possession and, inter alia, challenging the
entries in the revenue record would still be maintainable even
after the insertion of clause (ee) in S. 87(1), Chotanagpur
Tenancy Act, 1908.”
22. As a consequence of the answer to the 1st substantial question of
law, the suit filed under section 87(1) of the C.N.T Act, 1908 was itself
not maintainable, the suit stands dismissed being barred by limitation and
suffice is to say that the pending civil suit has to be decided as per law.
23. This second appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
24. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not
pressed.
25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts concerned
through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
14
[ad_2]
Source link