JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the revisionist. Also heard Mr. A. L. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 & 10 as well as Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 7, 8 & 9 and Ms. K. Phukan learned counsel as well as Ms. D. R. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.11,12 & 13.

2. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been preferred by the Revisionist Sri Narayan Mondal challenging the impugned order dated 08.04.2022, passed by Munsiff No. 2, Morigaon, in Misc. (J) Case No. 33/2021 (arisingoutofTitleSuitNo.3/2022).

3. The facts relevant for adjudication of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are as follows:

The Respondent No.1, Sri Sanjib Roy, as Plaintiff, had instituted a Title Suit against the present Revisionist and 12 others for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and fishery measuring about 4 bighas which falls in Govt Dag No. 32 situated at village No. 2 Dungabori Kissam under Mouza-Gova in the district of Morigaon Assam. The said suit has been registered as Title Suit No. 3/2020 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 2 Morigaon.

4. The present Revisionist, who was made the principal defendant i.e. the defendant No. 1, in the aforementioned Title Suit had appeared, before learned trial court, and filed his written statement and also filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint mainly on the ground that the Suit filed by the Respondent No-1 falls within the category of cases mentioned under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Said Petition was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 33/2021. However, after hearing learned counsel for both sides, the Court of learned Munsiff No. 2, Morigaon dismissed the said petition by order dated 08.04.2022, which is impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition .

5. For the sake of convenience, the impugned order is quoted herein below:

“Misc. (J) Case No.33/2021

(Arising out of T.S. No.03/2020)

08.04.2022

Plaintiff is duly represented.

Defendant/Petitioner is duly represented

Today’s date was fixed for order on 159/21 filed by the defendants/petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Vide the said petition the defendant has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886 as the plaintiff has sought right, title and interest over a government plot of land.

The defendant Narayan Mandal has submitted that the plaintiff has preferred the instant suit claiming right, title, interest over the suit land over a fishery which is a government land and is thus barred under relevant provision of law

In order to decide the petition, it is pertinent to go through the relevant provision of CPC. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected “where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law”. Hence, in order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be construed. The Court while deciding such an application must have due regard only to the statements in the plaint. Whether the suit is barred by any law must be determined from the statements in the plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement in the case.

In the present case, a meaningful reading of the plaint makes it abundantly clear that, whether the suit land has been allotted to the plaintiff or not is a fact in issue which can be decided only during the trial of the suit after evidence is being led. And as such, the plaint, on the face of it, does not disclose any fact that may lead us to the conclusion that it deserves to be rejected on the ground that it is barred by Section 154(1)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886.

Further the defendant has no locus standi to file this