Short Note : 1. It is said that certain sales tax dues were recoverable from the Firm Shabhudin Noora for the years 1961-62. The suit house was sold by the partners of the said firm to non-applicant No.3 Babulal on 4-8-64. The house was remodeled by Babulal and then he sold it on 14-11-69 to non applicant Nos. 1 and 2. However, in the recovery proceedings with respect to the sales tax duel against the firm Shahbudln Noora, the suit house was put to auction sale in 1969. The non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 filed objection against the attachment and sale of the house in suit, but it was dismissed on 23-7-70. The non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 went in appeal to the SDO, but it was also dismissed on 9-3-71. The said non-applicants, therefore, filed declaratory suit in the Court at Jaora on 23-8-71, but that Court held that it had no jurisdiction. The plaint was then returned to the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 on 20-12-73 for presentation to the proper Court. As the Courts were closed from 23-12-73 to 1-1-74 due to winter vacation the suit was instituted on 2-1-74 at Ratlam The non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 sought a declaration that the suit house was not liable to be sold towards the recovery of the sales tax which was due against the firm Shahbudin Noara. 2. The applicants resisted the claim and inter alia pleaded that the suit was barred under section 48 of the M. P. General Sales-tax Act; that the sale in favour of the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 was void as the proviso to section 33-A of the M.P. General Sales-tax Act was not attracted; that the suit was barred by time and that it was not maintainable. On the above pleadings the following preliminary issues were framed by the trial Court and the findings were given as noted against them: Sl. No. Issues. Findings. 1. Is section 48 of the M. P. General Sales-tax Act barred the suit filed by the plaintiff? Can the suit not proceed on the above ground? Is no bar. The suit is maintainable. 2. Is the suit within limination? Yes. 3. Whether the proviso to section 33-A of the M. P. General Sale-tax Act will not apply to the case of the plaintiff? Will apply. 4. Can the suit not proceed on the above ground? Is no bar. The suit is maintainable. 2. Is the suit within limination? Yes. 3. Whether the proviso to section 33-A of the M. P. General Sale-tax Act will not apply to the case of the plaintiff? Will apply. 4. Is the suit of the plaintiff only for declaration is not maintainable ? Yes. The suit is maintainable Held : First of all I shall deal with the question whether the suit was barred in view of the provision contained in section 48 of the M. P. General Sales-tax Act. On a bare reading of the aforesaid section it would be clear that the provision is made for the protection of any officer or servant of the State Government acting or purporting to act under the M. P. General Sales-tax Act. so that they may not be harassed in a vexatious litigation. In the instant case the suit property was attached for the recovery of sales-tax dues. The non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 have filed the suit for declaration that the property was not liable to attachment & sale. It is therefore. not a suit against any officer or servant of the State Government for any act done or purporting to be done under the M. P. General Sales-tax Act, but It is a suit to vindicate the claim of the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 with respect to the suit property, It may be noted that according to section 22(5) of the M. P. General Sales tax Act, an amount of tax is recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Section 147 of the Land Revenue Code provides that arrears of land revenue payable to the Government may be recovered by attachment and sale of any immovable property belonging to the defaulter. Rule 24 of the Rules of Procedure of Revenue Officers and Revenue Courts framed under section 41 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. The provisions of the said rule are similar to the provisions contained in rules 58 and 63 of order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is thus clear that the instant suit is in the nature of a declaratory suit and hence it is not hit by section 48 of the M. P. General Sales-tax Act. 3. The provisions of the said rule are similar to the provisions contained in rules 58 and 63 of order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is thus clear that the instant suit is in the nature of a declaratory suit and hence it is not hit by section 48 of the M. P. General Sales-tax Act. 3. The trial Court while dealing with the preliminary issue No. 2 has no doubt held that the non applicants Nos. 1 and 2 prosecuted the suit at Jaora Court with due diligence as they had instituted the suit in that Court on the advise of the pleader. It may be pointed out that the application under section 14 of the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 was not even supported by an affidavit. It appears that the trial Court without giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence decided the application under section 14 and excluded the period spent in the Court at Jaora. In this connection it may also be noted that the Court at Jaora had passed an order for return of the plaint on 12.10.73 but the non-applicants No.1 and 2 obtained the plaint from the Court at Jaora on 22-12-73. The non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 had, therefore, to explain the said period as well. I am, therefore, of the view that the trial Court erred in deciding preliminary issue No.2 with respect to the limitation without making any enquiry as regards the allegation made in the application under section 14 of the Limitation Act. It would be, therefore, in the interest of justice to remand the case for reconsideration of the question of limitation after holding a proper enquiry into the matter. 4. The trial Court, while taking the view that the proviso to section 33, A was applicable to the instant case, gave the finding that the sale of the suit house made in favour of the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 was bona fide and for valuable consideration. It may, however, be pointed out that section 33-A was inserted in the M.P. General Sales-tax Act, vide M. P. Act No. 20 of 1964 from 1-11-64 and it came into effect from 1-11-64, but the suit house was sold by the partners of the firm Shahbudin Noora to Babulal on 4-8-64. It may, however, be pointed out that section 33-A was inserted in the M.P. General Sales-tax Act, vide M. P. Act No. 20 of 1964 from 1-11-64 and it came into effect from 1-11-64, but the suit house was sold by the partners of the firm Shahbudin Noora to Babulal on 4-8-64. Therefore, the provisions contained in section 33-A of the M.P. General Sales-tax Act would not apply to the said transaction. It is true that after the enactment of section 33-A of the M. P. General Sales-tax Act, Babulal had sold the house to non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 on 14-11-69. As Babulal cannot be said to be a dealer liable to pay the sales tax dues which were recoverable from the firm Shahbudin Noora the question as regards the applicability of section 33-A to the sale or the house by Babulal to non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 does not a arise. When the main section 33-A is not applicable to the suit transaction, the question as regards the applicability of the proviso of that section also does not arise. I am, therefore of the view that the finding of the lower Court on issue No.3 is redundant. 5. It may, however, be observed that in case the applicants challenge the transfer of the suit house to non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that sale proclamation with respect to it were already issued the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 are free to make out a case that they have purchased the suit house for valuable consideration and without notice of the pendency of the proceedings under the M. P. General Sales-tax Act, in Case they find it necessary to do so under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The finding of the trial Court on preliminary issue No.4 that the suit is maintainable, cannot be assailed. Revision partly allowed.