The Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court striking down the amended provisions of Section 109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act was binding on all concerned, and the trial court was required to proceed with the suit.

Binod Kumar Roy, J.

1. In terms of Order dated 9-4-1993, I proceed to dispose of this Civil revision application on merits which has been filed against part of an order dated 27-11-1992 passed (on the petition dated 17-9-1992 of Opposite Party No. 1 as contained in Annexure-7-A) by Shri Md. R. Hussain, Subordinate Judge III, Sasaram in Title Suit No. 74 of 1967 holding that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. Relevant facts emerging from perusal of the revision petition, 8 Annexures attached to it, the impugned order and the submissions made at the Bar, are in a narrow compass The petitioner filed the suit in question for a declaration that it has got title over the new survey plots described in Schedule A of the plaint and that the defendants have no title or concern with the same after rejection of its objection by the survery authorities asserting that it has cast a doubt on its title. In view of the amendments made in Sec. 109 of the Bihir Tenancy Act by an Ordinance passed in 1971 by order dated 3-7-1971 the suit was transferred to the Collector holding that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction. A Full Bench of this Court speaking through Untwalia, C.J. (as he then was) about 20 years ago in Nand Kumar Rai and Ors. V/s. Ram Sinhasan Rai and Ors. -- , struck down the amended provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as ultra vires and held that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide the question of title. The Settlement Officer, who took up the suit after transfer, by his order dated 15-1-1974 stayed further proceedings in view of the decision of this Court. The records of the suit were re-transferred on 19-5-1978 under Memo No. 576 and received back by the trial Court. On 19-9-1982 the petitioner filed an application to re-hear the suit on the ground of striking down the provisions as ultra vires by this Court consequent to the stay of further proceedings of the suit by the Settlement Officer. The said application was heard and the defendants were noticed fixing 1-10-1982 for hearing. On 19-10-1982 the petitioner filed an application for grant of interin injunction which was contested by Defendant No. 1 and allowed by order dated 11-12-1982. No, appeal was preferred against that order. Opposite Party No. 4-Kalyanpur Lime and Cement Works Limited, on its application, was added as an intervenor Defendant No. 4 by order dated 15-9-1984. The intervention was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Civil Revision No. 209 of 1985, By order dated 2-7-1986 Civil Revision aforementioned was dismissed but having regard to the nature of the case, the trial Court was commanded to take all necessary steps for hearing of the suit without delay, with a futher command that if the trial Court has to pass an order of adjournment, the same shall not be for a longer period. The petitioner examined ten witnesses. Earlier the Opposite Party No. 4 had filed a petition dated 25-5-1985 to set aside the order of injunction granted on 11-12-1982. On 17-9-1992 the Defendant No. 4 filed a petition asserting that in view of changed circumstances, the petition dated 25-5-1985 needs immediate disposal. On the very day Defendant No. 1 also filed a petition to set aside or modify the earlier order dated 11-12-1982. Opposite Party No. 1, who is Defendant No. 1, also filed petition dated 17-9-1992 asserting inter alia that the Collector, Shahabad has no jurisdiction to transfer the case to the court and that the court has gone beyond jurisdiction in granting relief of injunction on the same record which was transferred to the Collector, Shahabad and hence the suit is not maintainable. The petitioner resisted the petitions aforementioned but the trial Court, as already stated, held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this case and that the earlier order passed by his predecessor granting interim injunction as without jurisdiction and vacated the same. The petition