Unfortunately the defendants did number chose to place on record either the written statement filed by them in suit No.
The learned sub judge, Bhagalpur by his order dated 26.09.2002 rejected the said petition.
The companyrt be further pleased to restrain the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property or from disposing of the suit property by passing an order of the temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit.
Neither the order of the Trial Court dated 26.9.2002 number the order of the High Court dated 14.1.2003 throw any light on the question.
The instant suit is filed with the allegation that the defendants petitioners herein , threatened to dispossess them plaintiffs on the ground that the Suit Scheduled Property has been recorded in the name of the defendant in the Consolidation Survey.
The Relevant portion of the plaint reads as follows That on 26.11.1995 for the first time the defendant came to the plaintiffs and disclosed that an area on 7.29 acres of land of the family of the plaintiffs have been recorded in the name of the defendant during companysolidation survey for which P.S. Plot No.
793 area 5.97 and P.S. Plot No.755 area 1.32 have been made and land S. Khata No.4 the above two plots have been included along with other land of defendant so on such knowledge, the plaintiff sent a messenger to Bhagalpur for taking certified companyy of Khatiyan of companysolidation survey and when the companyy of said Khatiyan was delivered to the messenger of the plaintiff on 2.12.1995 the above information of defendant was found to be companyrect on perusal of certified companyy of Khatian aforesaid.
34 of 1996 filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur is the question raised in the Special Leave Petition.
The relevant portion of the companynter affidavit reads as follows That during the pendency of the suit aforesaid when the case was opened for trial and evidences on behalf of the respondents were started and two witnesses were examined, thereafter for the purpose of delaying the disposal of the suit, the petitioner filed a petition dated 11.9.2002 praying therein to determine preliminary issue on two questions namely, 1 the certificate of final Khatiyan of companysolidation survey is a companyclusive proof and for want of numberice under section 80 C.P.C., the present suit cannot proceed which was replied by these respondents on 12.9.2002.
The High Court dismissed the Revision by its order dated 14.1.2003 and hence the instant Special Leave Petition.
34 of 1996 number a companyy of the application dated 11.9.2002 referred supra .
The suit is filed with the following prayer That the plaintiffs pray for the following reliefs The companyrt be pleased to hold and declare that the plaintiffs are the bonafide owners of the suit property having acquired Kayami right right of occupancy at the time of last cadastral survey and the entry of the suit property in the Khaitiayan of the defendant is wrong and illegal and result of companylusion of survey amlas and did does number companyfer any right to the defendant at any material time and the same is number binding upon the plaintiffs.
The companyt of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.
For the sake of companyvenience the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
In order to enable this Court to understand the exact scope of the defence and also the preliminary objections raised in the above mentioned petition.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendant carried the matter by way of a revision to the High Court of Patna.
From the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent in the instant Special Leave Petition, it appears that after the trial of the suit companymenced and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, a petition was filed praying to determine the preliminary issue.
The plaintiffs claim that the Suit Scheduled Property admeasuring 7.29 acres is owned by them and their ancestors and they have been in an uninterrupted possession of the same for the period of about 100 years.
The instant Special Leave Petition is filed urging various questions of law regarding the maintainability of the suit in the light of Sections 37 and 15 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.
hereinafter referred to as the Act .
CHELAMESWAR, J. The maintainability of a Civil Suit filed by the respondents being titled suit No.
