Patna High Court
Jagnarayan Mishra And Anr. vs Ramadhar Pathak And Ors. on 14 May, 1982
Equivalent citations: AIR1982PAT183, 1982(30)BLJR361, AIR 1982 PATNA 183, (1982) BLJ 451 1982 BLJR 361, 1982 BLJR 361
ORDER M.P. Varma, J.
1. The present application in revision has been filed against an order passed by Sri Baleshwar Prasad Singh, Subordinate Judge, Arrah, dated 15-1-1979 in Title Suit No. 141' of 1970, rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to dispose of their application filed under Section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before disposal of the suit itself.
2. The suit in question is for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It was filed in the year 1970. During the pendency of the suit notification under Section 3 of the Act has been issued and consolidation proceeding has already started, The petitioners filed an application in the said suit under Section 4 (c) of the Act stating therein that the petitioners had received notice under Section 10 (1) of the Act with respect to the suit land and therefore, the suit in question has abated under Section 4 (c) of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge, it appears, without taking into consideration the expediency and the circumstances of the case, rejected the petitioners' petition by order dated 15-1-1979 holding therein that the petition under Section 4 (c) would be disposed of along with the judgment to be passed in the suit after final hearing.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly submitted that the impugned order is a clear case of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the court by law.
4. The petition of the defendants filed in the court below for determination whether the suit had abated under Section 4 (c) of the Act should have been disposed of and should not have been deferred for determination after the whole trial was gone into, because the determination of that question, if the same has terminated in favour of the defendants would have completely disposed of the suit and saved the parties from the burden of prolonged litigation besides saving this Court's precious time. The order impugned is therefore, patently wrong and is fit to be set aside.
5. In the result, the order is set aside. The application is allowed, but without costs. The court below is directed to dispose of the defendants' petition in question after hearing the parties in accordance with law.