SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Pat) 1718

MIHIR KUMAR JHA
Manju Singh – Appellant
Versus
Narendra Kumar Singh – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.

2. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the prayer made in the plaint and also other averments would submit that the suit in question is clearly barred under the provisions of Section 43 of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act). He would further emphasize that any claim for pre-emption as has been sought to be pressed in the present suit by the plaintiffs-opposite parties cannot be entertained by the Civil Court and therefore on a plain reading of the plaint itself the Court below was required to decide this aspect in terms of Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. In the opinion of this Court counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct. Section 43 of the Act reads as follows :

"43. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court (1) Save and except as provided in this Act no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Board of Revenue, the appellate authority or the Collector."

4. If the aforementioned bar agai








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top