IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.695 of 2008 1. Bihar State Housing Board, Patna through its Managing Director, 6 Mangles Road, Patna. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Mangles Road, Patna. 3. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Darbhanga, P.O.-Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga ---- Petitioners/Defendant Ist Party. Versus 1. Arun Kumar Singh 2. Kiran Kumar Singh 3. Anjani Kumar Singh, all sons of Sri Krishna Singh, resident of Mohalla-R.S. Tank, Ward No.36, P.S. & Anchal-Bahadurpur Subdivision, Sadar, District-Darbhanga at present residing at Village-Kharajpur, P.S. Bahadurpur, Subdivision-Sadar, District- Darbhanga ----- Opposite Parties Ist Set/Plaintiff. 4. Smt. Meera Devi, wife of Rajdev Singh, Assistant Bihar State Housing Board, Darbhanga, residing at Housing Board Colony, House No. L/92, Village-Kharajpur, P.S. Bahadurpur, Subdivision- Sadar, District- Darbhanga ---- Opposite Party 2nd Set/Defendant 2nd Set . ---------------------------------- 5. 3.11.2011 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha for the petitioners. The defendants have preferred this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is directed against the order dated 25.9.2007, passed by the learned Munsif Ist, Darbhanga, in Title Suit No. 15 of 2005, whereby the application filed by the present petitioners as to the maintainability of the suit has been rejected and it has been held that the suit in its present frame is maintainable. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners presses I.A. No. 2762 of 2008, filed under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay of 90 days in filing the present revision application. In view of the statements made in this application and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the delay in filing this civil revision application is hereby condoned. I.A. No.2762 of 2008 is accordingly allowed. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears that the suit has been instituted for seeking relief of easementary rights with respect to the suit lands. The defendants (the petitioners herein) filed an application raising objection as to the maintainability of this appeal on the strength of Section 62 read with Section 92 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The same has been rejected by the learned trial court and it has been held that the suit is maintainable. It appears to us that Sections 62 and 92 of the Act prohibits institution of a suit with respect to action 3 taken by the Board under the provisions of the Act. The cause of action disclosed in the suit is not with respect to the action taken under the Act, and instead seeks relief of easementary rights which the plaintiff allegedly enjoyed at the hands of the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants. It is relevant to state here that defendants had acquired the lands from its previous owners under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In such a situation, the relief prayed for in the suit is not with respect to an order or action taken under the provisions of the Act. Secondly, law is well settled that the suit is the basic remedy for a citizen of this country, and the Courts are reluctant to displace maintainability of the suit, unless it is completely barred by specific provisions or by necessary implication of specialized enactment. In the result, we agree with the order of the learned trial court. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)