The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit filed under Section 14(4) of the L.R. Code must be filed within the one-year limitation period from the date of the order, and the corrigendum to the order does not extend the limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Revision Application is filed by the petitioner/original defendant being aggrieved by the Order dated 11.01.2013 passed by the learned District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao in Civil Suit No. 24/2012/FTC/I, whereby the application dated 28.09.2012 of the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 10 (f) (original defendants) under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, for short), for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

2. It is submitted that there was one application dated 12.02.1982 under Section 14(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 (L.R. Code, for short) was moved before the Deputy Collector Margao, which came to be registered under No. LRC/TITLE/11/82. The said application was by the predecessor of the original defendants Mr. Narendra Atmaram Nadkarni, Mr. Naguesh Atmaram Sinai Nadkarni and Mr. Prabhakar Yeshwant Sinai Nadkarni, claiming that the property “Digalsorod” also know as “Digal” in Vichundrem village within the limits of Village Panchayat of Netravali in Sanguem and registered under No. 13361 of Book B-37 and in the Revenue office under Matriz No. 191 and 193 and surveyed under new Survey No. 51/1(part), 52/1 to 52/14 and 53/1(part) as their property.

3. The Deputy Collector and SDO at Quepem allowed the said application vide his judgment and order dated 21.09.2001. On 07.01.2002, the respondent no. 1, original plaintiff preferred an Appeal before the Administrative Tribunal from the order dated 21.09.2001 vide Revenue Appeal No. 75/2006. The said Appeal came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 12.05.2011. On the same day i.e. on 12.05.2011, respondent no. 1 herein applied for certified copy, which was ready on 19.05.2011 and was delivered to respondent no. 1 on 23.05.2011.

4. A corrigendum dated 20.05.2011 was drawn by the Administrative Tribunal in Case No. 75/2006 in order to correct the clerical errors arising in judgment dated 12.05.2011, of which, the certified copy was delivered to respondent no. 1 on 23.05.2011.

5. The respondent no. 1 preferred a Civil Suit under Section 14(4) of the L.R. Code on 23.05.2012 for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2011 of the learned Administrative Tribunal in Appeal No. 24/2012/FTC/I. It is the contention of the applicant that the said suit was barred by limitation in view of specific provision under sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 14 of the Land Revenue Code, which reads as follows:

14. Title of Government to lands etc. –

(1) ….

(2) ….

(3) ….

(4) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (3) or in appeal or revision there from may institute a civil suit to contest the order within a period of one year from the date of such order, and the decision of the civil court shall be binding on the parties.

(5) Any suit instituted in any civil court after the expiration of one year from the date of any order passed under sub-section (3) or, if appeal or revision application has been made against such order within the period of limitation, then from the date of any order passed by the appellate or revisional authority, shall be dismissed (though limitation has not been set up as a defence) if the suit is brought to set aside such order or if the relief claimed is inconsistent with such order, provided that the plaintiff has had due notice of such order.

6. In view of the above provisions, the applicant/original defendant moved an application dated 28.09.2012 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint as it was apparently barred by the Law of Limitation. Learned Civil Judge while dismissing the application recorded finding as under:

“The judgment and order dated 12/05/2011 is incomplete and inconclusive without the corrigendum dated 20/05/2011. The said judgment and order dated 12/05/2011 has to be read as a whole alongwith the corrigendum dated 20/05/2011, which copy was admittedly, issued to the plaintiff on 23/05/2011.”

7. It is contended that this finding itself is sufficient to indicate