JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 31.08.2018 passed in Title Suit No.22/12 by which the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that they have instituted a suit against the respondents being Title Suit No.22 of 2012 seeking therein the following reliefs:

“(i) A declaration of the Plaintiffs' right, title and interest over the suit property;

(ii) Recovery of possession of the suit Plot No.1 and confirmation of possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit plot no.198;

(iii) A mandatory Injunction direction the defendants to dismantle and remove the house and structure standing on suit plot No.1 and restore the same to its original character;

(iv) Costs of the suit;

(v) Such other or reliefs, the Plaintiffs are entitled to in equity and justice.”

3. The respondents have appeared after calling upon by the trial court and filed the written statements wherein the plea has been taken that the suit is barred under Section 63 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 (in short the SPT Act, 1949) and the trial court after taking into consideration the said aspect of the matter has rejected the amendment petition by coming to the conclusion that any order passed under Section 23 of the SPT Act, 1949 which pertains to the provision of exchange either by the court of Deputy Commissioner or by the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer empowered in this behalf and against the order passed under Section 23 of the SPT Act, 1949, appeal will lie under Section 57 and therefore, the trial court was of the view that since the order passed under Section 23 of the SPT Act which has been sought to be brought on record by way of amendment, is appealable, therefore, the same cannot be incorporated by making it part of the pleading.

4. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the aforesaid order has taken inter alia the following grounds:

(i) it is not in dispute that an order passed under Section 23 of the SPT Act is appealable under Section 57 of the SPT Act but it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as would appear from the provision of Section 63 of the SPT Act, 1949 since therein, there is no absolute bar not to entertain the suit against the order passed under the provision of the SPT Act, 1949 but this aspect has not been appreciated by the trial court while dealing with the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(ii) the argument has been advanced when a specific issue has been raised with respect to the question of limitation as to whether the amendment can be allowed if the original suit cannot be filed against the instrument if barred by limitation as would appear from the order dated 11.07.2019 passed in the instant writ petition and answering the same it has been submitted that in assailing the orders passed in a Settlement Case No.08/1952-53 and Rev. Misc. Case No.178/1979-80, there is no question of limitation and as such even on this ground although the said ground has not been agitated before the trial court but the same, on such ground, the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 cannot be rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhulabhai and Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., reported in AIR 1969 SC 78 and an order passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Tarini Marandi Ors. vs. Lakshmi Mahto Ors., in Civil Revision No.36 of 1998.

5. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel who has been directed by this Court to assist the Court as would appear from the order dated 06.07.2019, has submitted that even there is no period of limitation prescribed, it cannot be said that the