ORDER

I have already heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.21.

2. Opposite party no.1/plaintiff did not appear, despite notice being served upon him.

3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Kishanganj in Title Suit No. 19 of 2007, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Code’), was rejected by the court below.

4. The petitioner/defendant filed a petition dated 12.07.2019 under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code, mentioning therein that the suit filed by the opposite party no.1/plaintiff is barred under Section 4(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act 1988’), as such, the plaint should be rejected under the above-mentioned provision of ‘the Code’. The learned court below rejected the petition filed by the petitioner on the following two grounds:—

(1) Already similar petition filed by other defendants was rejected, vide order dated 28.10.2016.

(2) Section 4(1) of the Act 1988 is prospective and the sale deed, which is said to be