IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.586 of 2007 ASGARI KHATOON Versus SULEMAN SIDHKI & ANR ----------- 2. 30.9.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court the court below in stead of passing the impugned order ought to have first gone into the crucial question as with regard to maintainability of the suit itself filed by the plaintiff opposite party. That is because the plaintiff in paragraph 25 of the plaint apart from the other relief has prayed for the following relief which appears to be the main relief: “1- ;g ds oxkSj lsgr ek;tkr lnj MhØh bLrjdjkj nfd;r ds njoy;koh mij leeqnkogk eksUnxsZ enu 3 cgd Qhgoh eqnbZ [ksykQ eqnkygqe lkFk ntkZ dks cslqykr lkghj Qkeyk tkn oks oklfxr iokZ fu’or dsl ua0 6@97&98 esa ikjhr vkns’k fnukad 8- 8-97 oks oklxhr ipkZ fnukad 18-11-97 tkyh Qjsoh oks uksekbZlh gS mldk dksbZ çfrcU/k finoh eqnbZ ij ugha gSA ortoht mlds vkns’k oks oklxhr iokZ etdqj dks uktk;t dSUlhy oks voS/kkfud ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA” It would thus appear that the suit is out and out as with regard to questioning an order with regard to grant of purcha under Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead 2 Surendra/ Tenancy Act. Section 18 of the said Act provides as follows: “18. Order under this Act to be final- The orders passed under this Act shall be final. Subject to the provisions of Section 21, all orders passed by the Collector in any proceeding under this Act shall be final, and no suit shall lie in any civil court to vary or set aside any such order except on the ground of fraud or want of jurisdiction.” That being so, the suit in question has to be first dealt from the question of maintainability. The court below will go into the pleadings in the plaint to find out as to whether the suit in hand is maintainable in terms of section 18 of the Act. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to decide first the question of maintainability. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 3 Surendra/