V. NATH, J.:–The ambit of the jurisdiction of the Court to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of bar of the suit by limitation and the validity of the impugned order passed by the court below deferring the adjudication in this regard to the time of hearing of the suit are the primal questions involved in this revision application.

2. Heard the parties at length.

3. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 06.12.2004 passed by Sub Judge II, Munger in T.S.No. 20/93 rejecting the petition dated 06.09.1994 filed by the defendant 1st Set praying for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

4. By order dated 14.12.2007 this revision application has been admitted for hearing and the submissions on behalf of the petitioner has been succinctly mentioned in the order.

5. The plaintiff opposite party 1st Set has filed T.S.No.22/93, wherein the revision petitioner has been impleaded as defendant 1st party besides other defendants who are opposite parties 2nd Set to opposite party 6th Set in this revision application, for the following reliefs:-

(a) The court may be pleased to pass a decree for eviction against defendant first party from the suit premises mentioned in Schedule B,C and D and the defendants first party be directed to vacate the suit premises within a date fixed by the court failing which the defendant first party or anybody whomsoever be found in possession of the suit premises be evicted through the process of the court.

(b) The court may be pleased to declare that the plaintiffs first party has got 16 2/3 paise share jointly, plaintiff second party has got 8 1/3 paise jointly and plaintiffs third party, plaintiff No.17 to 23 have got /1/ Anna, plaintiff Nos. 24 to 29 have got /1/Anna and plaintiff No. 30 to 32 have got /1/ Anna share of /4/Annas share in the suit properties and a preliminary decree of the plaintiffs /8/ annas share of partition may be passed against the defendants second party and third party and thereafter a survey knowing advocate commissioner be appointed to partition the suit property by metes and bounds at the spot and a final decree may be passed.

(c) The court may further be pleased to declare that the order passed by the learned D.C.L.R. Sadar, Munger on 18.08.1987 in Rent Fixation Case No. 01of 76-77 as void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(d) A decree for arrears of rent may be passed as per account given in Schedule E of the plaint against the defendants 1st party.

(e) A decree for cost of the suit may be passed against the defendants.

(f) Any other relief or reliefs may be granted to the plaintiffs.

6. Shorn of unnecessary details, the plaintiffs’ case is that the plaintiff and the defendant 2nd set and 3rd set are the owners in joint possession of the suit properties as mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint. Originally the suit properties were under the Zamindari of Sah Md. Jhakharia and others and the ancestor of the plaintiffs as well as the defendant 2nd set and 3rd set were tenants under them and after the purchase of the suit properties the name of the ancestor of the plaintiffs was mutated in the rent roll of the said ex-landlord and rent receipts were granted to the ancestor of the plaintiffs. In the year 1907 the defendant 1st set was inducted as tenant in a portion of the suit properties on monthly rental of Rs.89/- per month by the ancestor of the plaintiff and defendant 2nd set and 3rd set. The request by the defendant 1st set, later on, to change the tenancy to a fixed period tenancy had been declined by the ancestor of the plaintiff but the ancestors of the defendant 2nd set and 3rd set agreed to such change and executed a lease deed for a fixed period of 5 years. The defendant 1st set continued to pay the monthly rent to the ancestor of the plaintiff and thereafter to the plaintiff and later on the other portion of the suit property was also let out to the defendant 1st set by the plaintiff,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document