The time for suit initiation under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act begins at the record publication date, not knowledge. Claims are dismissed for failure to comply with limitation and notice requirements under applicable procedural laws.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 03^rd January, 2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.17 of 2018 whereby the learned appellate court has allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and has reversed the order dated 24.03.2018 passed by Revenue Officer, Dhanbad in suit bearing case No. 18 of 2011. The Revenue Officer, Dhanbad had dismissed the suit seeking rectification of the finally published record of rights. Both the appeals arise out of the same impugned judgement passed by the appellate court under Section 87 (2) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CNT Act). The 1^st appeal was filed against the order passed by the revenue officer.

2. On 30.10.2025 the following points have been framed for consideration: -

i. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

ii. If the suit was barred by limitation, whether the learned Revenue Officer had the power to condone the delay in filing the suit?

iii. Whether the suit was maintainable on account of absence of notice under Section 80 CPC?

iv. Whether the suit before the Revenue Officer could have proceeded in view of pendency of Title Suit No.119 of 2014 challenging the two said deeds no. 24951 dated 1.10.1970 and 25097 dated 6.10.1970 alleging fraud which was filed after institution of the suit before the Revenue Officer but before its disposal on 24.03.2018?

v. What would be the consequence of suit filed by respondent no. 39 (intervenor) at the stage of pendency of the 1^st appeal being title suit no. 201 of 2018 challenging the two said deeds no. 24951 dated 1.10.1970 and 25097 dated 6.10.1970 alleging fraud?

vi. Whether the decision in Suit No.544 of 2001 is binding on the parties?

3. The hearing of the case has been taken up from the records of S.A. No. 94 of 2019 as agreed by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties in both the cases.

S.A. No. 94 of 2019

Submission regarding question of law no. (i) and (ii)

4. The learned counsel for the appellant-State has referred to the petition filed under Section 87 of the CNT Act which was filed on 15.03.2011 and has submitted that it is an admitted fact that the record of rights was finally published on 15.05.2001. The learned counsel submits that the applicants themselves had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay meaning thereby that there was no dispute that the suit was barred by limitation. So far as explanation for delay is concerned it was only mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint that the applicants were staying outside and subsequently, they obtained the khatiyan and then they came to know that the period for seeking rectification of record of rights under Section 87 had already expired and they are filing a separate petition seeking condonation of delay. A reference has been made to paragraph 2 to 4 of the petition seeking condonation of delay.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no explanation for delay in as much as the applicants did not even disclose as to when and how they got knowledge about the error in record of rights.

6. He has submitted that the delay in filing the petition seeking rectification was condoned on 10.05.2011 by a cryptic order in as much as it does not disclose as to whether the parties were heard while condoning the delay. The learned counsel has submitted that the suit being admittedly barred by limitation, there was no occasio