IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.625 of 2008 Mandodary @ Danodari Devi, Wife of Jagarnath Pandit, R/o Village- Chhotopur, P.O.- Jiyayan, P.S.-Siwan(M),District- Siwan—-----------------------Defendant no.2----Petitioner. Versus 1.Ram Tapeshwar Sah, Son of late Haran Sah, R/o Village- Chhotopur, P.O.- Jiyayan, P.S.-Siwan(M),District-Siwan. --------------Plaintiff-Opp.Party(Ist Set). 2.Jagarnath Pandit, Son of late Balchhohara Pandit, R/o Village- Chhotopur ,P.O.- Jiyayan, P.S.-Siwan(M),District-Siwan. -----Defendant no.1-Opposite Party -2nd Set. For the Petitioner: Arun Kuamr Sigh no.4 Jitendra Kumar Sigh. Ranvijay Narain Singh. For Opp.Party:- Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. ----------- 3. 16.08.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for opposite party no.1/plaintiff. The present civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 11.03.2008 passed by Munsif I, Siwan in Title Suit No. 24 of 2005 by which the petition filed by the petitioners/defendant in the suit under Section 18 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for dismissing the suit as not maintainable has been rejected. 2 The plaintiff has filed the suit praying for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land with further prayer for recovery of possession by evicting the defendants from the room situated over the suit land. The defendant No.2 appeared in the suit and contested the same on the ground that there had already been a PARCHA under Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 granted in her favour for the suit land. The defendant No.2 further filed a petition in the suit, purporting to be Under Section 18 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, praying for holding that the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed as such. The learned court below in the impugned order has after hearing the parties come to the finding that no relief against the PARCHA has been sought for by the plaintiff in the suit and in this view of the matter the bar Under Section 18 is not attracted. However the learned court has further observed that one of the issues with respect to the maintainability of the suit Under Section 18 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 may be framed at the time of framing of the issues alognwith other issues. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 petitioner has submitted that a bare reading of the plaint will show that in substance the plaintiff has come out with a case challenging the validity of the PARCHA issued in favour of the defendant and as such the bar of Section 18 of the said Act will be attracted and the suit would not be maintainable. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1 has however supported the impugned order. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel of both the parties it is clear that no relief with regard to the PARCHA has been claimed in the suit. As such the bar of Section 18 of the said Act will not be attracted. However the liberty/observation granted by the learned court below for framing the appropriate issue with regard to Section 18 of the Act is also there to protect the interest of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The civil revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)