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.
82025: 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: 26148 Chotanagpur 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 the 13 2025: JHHC: 26148 application 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