Untwalia, J.

1. In this second appeal by the defendants, the foremost--rather, ultimately, the only question which has fallen for decision is the true meaning and scope of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter called the Code.

2. It is not necessary to give the details of all the facts leading to the institution of the suit by the plaintiff respondent. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff claimed that the suit land is his kasht land and as such did not vest in the State of Bihar defendant No. 1, under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The case of the plaintiff was that on the 8th of June, 1961, he came to know from Shri T.K. Misra, Land Reforms Deputy Collector, defendant No. 2, that he was purporting to make settlement by auction of an alleged fishery right in the tank said to be existing in the suit land on the ground that it had vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff filed an objection asserting that the property had not vested in the State. Ignoring that objection, the settlement proceedings continued, and the plaintiffs right was thus threatened by the intended settlement of the alleged fishery right. The plaintiff assert