1. Legality and propriety of order dated 11.03.2010 passed by VIIIth Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 15-A/2010, allowing the respondent's application filed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act, 1963').

2. Facts in nutshell necessary for disposal of this revision are that: the plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages against the defendant being Civil Suit No. 317-A/1983. In the said suit, the cause of action was shown to have arisen in the year 1983. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 26.09.1989.

3. Appeal preferred there-against by the plaintiffs was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur vide its judgment and decree dated 28.07.1995.

4. The defendant/applicant herein preferred miscellaneous appeal before this court against the appellate judgment. This court, vide order dated 14.11.2008 (Annexure P/5) allowed the applicant's appeal inter alia on the ground: since the suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, therefore, remedy of appeal was not available to the plaintiffs and the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was not maintainable and set aside the appellate judgment with liberty to the plaintiffs to file fresh suit for possession based on title subject to law of limitation.

5. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit for possession based on title along with application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for excluding the time during which the former civil proceedings was pending for the purpose of computation of period of limitation.

6. The trial court vide order impugned allowed the plaintiffs application. Hence this revision.

7. Shri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit: in the former suit, the plaintiffs have claimed the relief of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit was dismissed on merits, thereafter; they preferred an appeal which was allowed. Against that, the applicant herein preferred Misc. Appeal before this court and this court having found, against the judgment passed by the trial court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, remedy of appeal is not available, but only revision lies, allowed the applicant's appeal and set aside the order passed by the appellate court. Liberty was given by the court to the plaintiffs/respondents for filing of suit for possession based on title subject to law of limitation. Therefore, it cannot be said that former suit was dismissed due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, but, the same was dismissed on merits in accordance with law and the only mistake committed by the plaintiffs was of filing of appeal in place of revision. He further submits that now, the instant suit has been filed by them for possession based on title and not under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and therefore, the matter & issue in the earlier suit as well as in the instant suit are not same and Section 14 of Limitation Act has no application at all and the court below has acted without jurisdiction in allowing the plaintiff's application filed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

8. On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs supported the order impugned and contended, a bare reading of the former suit it would be clear that the plaintiffs in-fact have filed the earlier suit for possession based on title. It was further contended, liberty has been given by this court and accordingly considering every aspects of the matter, the trial court has allowed the respondent's application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the order impugned does not suffer from any jurisdictional illegality and the revision is devoid of merit.

9. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned including paper book.

10. Para 10 and 11 of order dated 14.