RANCHI, India, Nov. 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the following points arise for consideration in statutory second appeals S.A No. 94 of 2019 and in S.A No. 114 of 2019:

(i) Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

(ii) If the suit was barred by limitation, whether the learned Revenue Officer had the power to condone the delay in filing the suit?

(iii) Whether the suit was maintainable on account of absence of notice under Section 80 CPC?

(iv) Whether the suit before the Revenue Officer could have proceeded in view of pendency of Title Suit No.119 of 2014 challenging the two said deeds no. 24951 dated 1.10.1970 and 25097 dated 6.10.1970 alleging fraud which was filed after institution of the suit before the Revenue Officer but before its disposal on 24.03.2018?

(v) What would be the consequence of suit filed by respondent no. 39 (intervenor) at the stage of pendency of the 1st appeal being title suit no. 201 of 2018 challenging the two said deeds no. 24951 dated 1.10.1970 and 25097 dated 6.10.1970 alleging fraud?

(vi) "Whether the decision in Suit No.544 of 2001 is binding on the parties? S.A. No. 94 of 2019

2. The learned counsel for the respondent no.26 in S.A. No. 94 of 2019 has submitted that the said respondent is concerned with Khata No.401/152 and Khesra No.2509 area 1.04 acres, 2510 area 0.77 acres and 4081 area 1.81 acres out of 5.80 acres. She submits that the respondent no.26 was contesting the suit. She has submitted that while deciding the aforesaid points for determination, if it is held that the suit was not barred by limitation and the suit was maintainable, then another point for determination would arise in the present case i.e. "Whether the decision in Suit No.544 of 2001 is binding on the parties?

3. Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate submits that respondent nos.14 to 32 in S.A. No.94 of 2019 have filed their separate appeal bearing S.A. No.114 of 2019, challenging the same impugned judgement passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad. The learned counsel has submitted that respondent nos.14 to 32 of S.A. No.94 of 2019 did not challenge the order passed by the Revenue Officer before the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad as they were not aggrieved by the said judgement, but they were the respondents in the said case and now they have filed a separate appeal against the 1 st appellate order. She submits that her case was also covered by the earlier order passed in Case No.544 of 2001 and therefore, the same point for determination would arise for their case also as has been suggested with respect to respondent no.26 and their case would be covered by the case of respondent no.26.

4. In S.A. No.94 of 2019, intervention application has been allowed and Kumari Ratnakar, wife of Jainiwas Pandey has been added as respondent no.39. The order allowing the intervention is dated 16.08.2023 and the court while allowing the intervention application has observed that "having heard the submission made at bar and after going through the materials in the record, the fact remains undisputed that intervenor has purchased the part of the suit property and will be affected by the ultimate judgement that would be passed in this Second Appeal. The intervenor undertakes to abide by the judgement passed in this appeal." This intervenor has filed a separate appeal being S.A. No.99 of 2019.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62Wri1L6cmtxrmRuuFwbHj7%2Fmeg8jrstIw3BtS9bEEzQK2&caseno=SA/99/2019&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010109012019&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.