The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try civil suits is expansive, and any exception to this jurisdiction must be explicitly stated.

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Dinbandhu Singh for the petitioners and learned counsel Mr. Rang Nath Choubey, appearing for the Opposite Parties.

2. This revision application has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 17th of January 2011 passed by the learned Munsif – II, Vikramganj, Rohtas in Title Suit No. 35 of 1997 whereby the court below rejected the application, filed by the petitioner, for deciding the two issues as preliminary issues and for rejecting the plaint under order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

3. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for declaring the sale deed of the year 1972 as executed by the plaintiff’s mother, is void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff. Since the suit has been filed in the year 1997, apparently, the suit is barred by law of limitation because the plaintiff was born in the year 1963 and, therefore, he attained the majority in the year 1980-81. The plaintiff has filed the suit within three years after attaining of majority. Secondly, learned counsel submitted that the notification has already been issued under Section 3 of the Bihar Consolidation of (Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1956 and still there has been no de-notification under Section 26 A of the Consolidation Act and, therefore, the suit is barred. The learned court below wrongly held that the question of limitation is not pure question of law and so far Consolidation Act is concerned, the court below has said that the question/relief, claimed by the plaintiff, cannot be granted by the Consolidation Authority, and therefore, rejected the application and refused to decide the two issues as preliminary rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

4. Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC provides that where/whether issues both of law and of fact arises in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to:-

(a) The jurisdiction of the Court.

(b) A bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force.

5. In the present case, the petitioner has quoted the two issues to try as preliminary issues for the purpose of rejecting the plaint; the first is whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and the second is whether the suit is maintainable, in view of the notification under Section 3 of the Bihar Consolidation Act.

6. So far the first issue is concerned, according to the learned counsel, plaintiff was born in the year 1963 and he attained the majority in the year 1980-81 whereas; according to the plaintiff-respondent, it is not the fact that he was born in the year 1963 or that he attained the majority in the year 1980-81.

7. A rejoinder application was filed to the said application. Now, therefore, it becomes a disputed question of law and fact. Here the limitation is not admitted and this question is dependent on the facts as to when the plaintiff attained the majority and when he came to know about the existence of the exchange deeds or the sale deeds. Therefore, the court below has rightly held that it is a mixed question of law and fact and not a pure question of law. So far issue no. 2 is concerned; the issue is whether the suit is maintainable in view of the notification under Section 3 of the Consolidation Act. It is not the case that the plaintiff’s suit is barred under the said provision of the Consolidation Act. The relief, claimed in the suit by the plaintiff, is to declare the exchange deeds and the sale deeds as voidon the ground of fraud and illegality.

8. In my opinion, so far this relief is concerned the Consolidation Authority have no jurisdiction to grant this relief. No provision has been quoted or raised by the defendant to show that under which provision of Consolidation Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rames