Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to suits under the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, reaffirming that the Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred suit.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 87 (2) of the CHHOTA NAGPUR TENANCY ACT (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CNT Act’) against the judgment dated 09.12.2015 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 03/2015 by the learned District Judge-VI, Dhanbad declining to interfere with the order dated 18.01.2007 passed by the learned Revenue Officer, Dhanbad in CNT Case No. 15 of 2006 and dismissing the appeal as infructuous on the ground that as per proviso to Section 87 of the CNT Act, the Revenue Courts are precluded to decide an issue which is being decided by a competent court of civil jurisdiction and that the lis agitated in case No. 15/2006 and also in the present appeal is already being contested in Title Suit No. 194/2015 and the property involved in the present proceedings and in Title Suit No. 194/2015 are one and the same.

2. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 03.12.2018 on the following substantial questions of law: -

i. Whether Section-5 of LIMITATION ACT has any application with respect to a suit or original proceeding and if the answer is in negative the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad had any jurisdiction to entertain the CNT Case No.15/2006 which was admittedly barred by the law of Limitation and the subsequent order including order dated 18/01/2006 is illegal ab initio void and without jurisdiction?

ii. Whether the Court of appeal below without any materials available on record merely on presumption that a title suit is pending before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction declared the appeal infructuous without examining if the party in appeal are also party in the suit and subject matter and reliefs sought for in both the proceeding is same and similar?

iii. Whether the court of appeal below has committed a serious error raising a substantial question of law by not deciding the appeal filed under the provision of Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act challenging the order purportedly passed under Section 89 of the C.N.T. Act which relates to the entry made in the record of rights or for its correction but not for declaration of title and the suit which is alleged to have been filed in Civil Court if specifically for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and injunction which is too not against the respondents against whom the appellant was seeking relief?

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, while giving the foundational background of the case, has submitted that the appellant had purchased the property by virtue of two registered sale deeds dated 29.09.1983 and 27.06.1986. They had preferred an application under Section 89 of the CNT Act for correction of the record of rights which was registered as Case No. 1863/1986 and the order making correction in the record of rights was passed in favour of the appellant and the entry of the name of private respondents were directed to be expunged. The record of rights was finally published on 21.02.1996.

4. After expiry of about 10 years, the respondents herein preferred a suit under Section 87 of the CNT Act seeking correction of record of rights and a petition was also filed seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT which was allowed vide order dated 20.09.2006 and the