The definition of "person" in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is comprehensive enough to include a State Government.

Sinha, J.

1. This is an application against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Arrah, dated 24-6-1953, holding that the petitioner, the State of Punjab (India), is included within the expression "any other person" occurring in Sec.13, Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (70 of 1951).

2. The plaintiff, opposite party, who is admittedly a displaced person, has filed an application under the aforementioned Act, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act, for recovery of certain debt due from the petitioner. Two suits of like nature had also been brought in the same Court against the petitioner. The State of Punjab filed written statements in all; the suits, and the three suits were, made analogous and certain preliminary points going to the root of the jurisdiction of the. Court were dealt with together by the order in question.

In the other two suits, the Court below has held that, as there was no notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., those suits were not maintainable. In regard to the present suit, it has been held that no such plea was taken in the written statement and, therefore, that plea cannot be said to be a bar to the suit. A further point was taken in the written statements to the effect that the State of Punjab cannot be brought within the expression "any other person", and, therefore, the suits were not maintainable.

As the other suits were held to be not maintainable on the ground of want of notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., that point arose only in the present suit. The suit with which, I am concerned in the present petition is Money Suit No: 13 of 1952, pending in the subordinate Judges 2nd Court, Arrah.

3. Learned Government Advocate, who appeared in support of the application, has sub-mitted two points for the consideration of this Court, namely (1) that the State of Punjab is not a person within the meaning of Sec.13 of the Act; and (2) that the Court below wad wrong in holding that the bar of Section 80, Civil P. C., had not been pleaded in the written statement of the petitioner in the present suit namely, Money Suit No. 13 of 1952.

4. So far as the first point is concerned, we must have a look at Sec.13 of the Act, which runs as follows :

"At any time within one year after the date on which this Act comes into force in any local area, any displaced creditor claiming a debt from any other person who is not a displaced person make an application, in such form as may be prescribed, to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he or the respondent or, if there are more respondents than, one, any of such respondents, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain, together with a statement of the debt owing to him with full particulars thereof."

To bring an application within the provisions of this Act, any displaced creditor claiming a debt from any other person who is not a displaced person may make an application for the recovery of his debt. It is not disputed that the creditor in the present case comes within the expression "any displaced person" as defined in Sec.2 (10) of the Act. The only other question which has to be considered is, whether the State of Punjab can be brought under the expression

"any other person".

If the answer be in the affirmative, the other part of the section need not be consider ed. The section says that such an application could be filed to the Tribunal,

"within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he (the creditor) or the responded or, if there are more respondents than one, any of such respondents, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain".

It is enough if the displaced person is a person who actually - and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Arrah Court. There is no dispute, again, that the creditor, namely, the opposite party, answers the descri