JUDGMENT : R. N. Sahay. J. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs who brought a suit for declaration of their title and recovery of possession over the lauds appertaining to Khata Nos. 45 and 87, having an area of 8. 40 acres of village Pakhna, P. S Terpa, District Ranchi. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and also affirmed by the appellate court. 2. This appeal was admitted by the Additional Registrar on 11. 9. 1980 to decide the following substantial question of law: "Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of the Deputy Commissioner all necessary party." 3. In my opinion, the suit was not maintainable since the suit was brought by the appellant without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969 which amended order 1 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure by providing that any suit for declaration of order for possession relating to immovable property of member of the Scheduled Tribes as specified in part III Schedule of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) order 1950 the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall also be joined as defendant. The regulation aforementioned was enacted to amend the laws mentioned in the Schedule of the Act, for their application to the Scheduled Area for peace and good government of the area. This Regulation was obviously enacted to give special protection and safe guard to the members of the Scheduled Tribes. The parties to this litigation are Tribals and hence the suit was net maintainable without impleading the Deputy Commissioner as defendant. This defect was not noticed either by the trial court or by the appellate court. There can be no manner of doubt, that the provision referred to above is absolutely mandatory in character and admits of no exception. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the whole case should be remanded to the trial court for re trial with liberty to the appellants to implead the Deputy Commissioner as defendant in the suit. The learned counsel has contend ad that the trial court should have directed the plaintiffs-appellants to implead the Deputy Commissioner but I think the trial court was ignorant of the new regulation which had come into force with effect from 8. 2. 1969 and the suit was filed on 8. 3. 1969. The learned counsel has contend ad that the trial court should have directed the plaintiffs-appellants to implead the Deputy Commissioner but I think the trial court was ignorant of the new regulation which had come into force with effect from 8. 2. 1969 and the suit was filed on 8. 3. 1969. No objection was raised by the defendants either before the trial court or before the appellate court regarding this defect. In my opinion, since the suit was not maintainable as the Deputy Commissioner was not impleaded as party to the suit, the plaint was liable to be rejected or the plaintiff should have been given opportunity to implead the Deputy Commissioner as defendant. The plaint should have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. The plaintiff was not precluded from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. In the instant case instead or rejecting the plaint, the trial court decided the suit on merit. The dismissal of the suit on merit was without jurisdiction and the judgment under appeal will not operate as res-judicata, if a fresh suit is filed by the plaintiffs. It has been held in A. I. R. 1975 Patna: 74, that where instead of rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) for non compliance of Section 80 of the Code, the suit is dismissed on merit, the dismissal being without jurisdiction does not operate as res-judicata so as to bar a subsequent suit in the same cause of action. The appellants can institute a fresh suit for their reliefs claimed by him in the present suit. 5. The suit will not be barred by limitation, because the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation has also amended Article 65 of the Limitation Act, by providing limitation of thirty years for instituting a suit for recovery of possession. 6. I am, therefore, unable to accede the prayer of Shri Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the suit be remanded to the trial court for retrial. 7. The answer to the question formulated in the Second appeal must be in the affirmative, hence no relief can be granted to the appellants. It should be open to the appellants to file a fresh suit after impleading the Deputy Commissioner as a party. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. 7. The answer to the question formulated in the Second appeal must be in the affirmative, hence no relief can be granted to the appellants. It should be open to the appellants to file a fresh suit after impleading the Deputy Commissioner as a party. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. HP. Appeal dismissed.