Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. This civil revision by the defendant 1st party is directed against the order dated 13.6.97 passed by the 3rd Subordinate Judge, Godda, in Title Partition Suit No. 8 of 1990 by which the application to dismiss the suit as being not maintainable has been rejected. 2. The suit is said to be barred in view of the provisions of Sec. 5 read with Sec. 9 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 (Regulation No. 3 of 1872). Sec. 9 runs as follows: Power to order settlement.--The State Government may from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette declare that a settlement shall be made of the whole or any part of the Santhal parganas for the purpose of ascertaining and recording the various interests and rights in the lands. Sec. 5 runs as follows: Every such decision, and every decision given in appeal therefrom, shall be certified by the said Court to the officer by whom the certificate mentioned in Sub-sec. (1) was made, or to such" officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf: and its purport, so far as relevant, shall thereupon be entered in the record-of-rights. It is contended that area comprising of Patharga, Amdiha, Dwarichak and Madhuchak villages are covered by notification No. S.O. 1387 dated 14.10.96 issued under Sec. 9 of the said Regulation and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court. 3 Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Annexure-1. Annexure-1 purports to be part of the schedule of so called notification under Sec. 388 of the Bihar Municipal Act, It is suggested that no part or area of the District of Godda has been mentioned in the said schedule as being "notified area" within the meaning of Sec. 388 of that Act. Therefore, in terms of the notification dated 14.10.96 (supra) the villages in question would be deemed to be part of the area notified under Sec. 9. The suit, therefore, is not maintainable. 4. Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, stated that certain lands of villages which fell within the purview of the notification dated 14.10.96 (supra) were later deleted by amendment. And so far as the remaining lands are concerned, they lie within the notified area within the meaning of Sec. 388 of the Municipal Act. 4. Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, stated that certain lands of villages which fell within the purview of the notification dated 14.10.96 (supra) were later deleted by amendment. And so far as the remaining lands are concerned, they lie within the notified area within the meaning of Sec. 388 of the Municipal Act. Reference in this connection has been made to notification No. S.O. 1677 dated 1.11.74. The provisions of Sec. 5 of the Regulation are, therefore, not attracted. Counsel also took the plea that the parties to the suit including one of the plaintiffs have not been impleaded as opposite party in this revision. The submission is that the order as against them has become final. Any interference with the order would result in conflicting orders. 5. It is not in dispute that the area notified as "notified area" under Section 388 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 1922, lie outside the purview of Sec. 5 of the Regulation. In other words, while the provisions of Sec. 5 apply to the lands or area with respect to which notification under Sec. 9 of the Regulation has been issued, the lands or area falling outside, that is, inside the "notified area" will stand out. With respect to such land the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the notification dated 1.11.74 relied upon on behalf of the opposite party has been superseded. He sought time till 5.12.97 (the case was heard on 2.12.97) to produce copy of the so called notification superseding the previous one dated 1.11.74. Till date neither he has filed copy of any such notification nor mentioned the case. 7. In view of the admitted position that the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Regulation are not application to lands situate in the "notified area" within the meaning of Sec. 388 of the Municipal Act and in absence of any rebuttal evidence, the stand of the opposite party based on notification dated 1.11.76 has to be accepted as correct one. The provisions of Sec. 5 of the Regulations, thus, not being applicable, it must be held that the suit in the Court below is maintainable and the order does not suffer from any error. 8. In the result, this civil revision is dismissed.