ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the defendant petitioners as also the counsel for the plaintiff respondent no.1. None has appeared on behalf of respondent nos.2, 3, although Vakalatnama has been filed on their behalf. 2. This writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the order dated 26.06.2009, Annexure-10 passed by the Subordinate Judge-III, Patna in Title Suit No.421/07 whereunder amendment petition dated 16.07.2008 filed by plaintiff respondent no.1 has been allowed permitting them to question the proceedings taken by the defendant petitioners L.I.C. of India and its Divisional Manager before the Estate Officer for eviction of the plaintiff respondent no.1 from the Public Premises leased out by L.I.C. of India vide lease deed dated 24.4.2007 Anneuxre-1 in favour of plaintiff respondent no.1 for five years commencing from 8.11.2004. During the period lease was subsisting, lessor L.I.C. of India required the Public Premises for its own use and served notice dated 6.8.2007, Annexure-1 determining the lease asking defendant/respondent no.1 to vacate the premises. Perusal of Annexure-1 would further indicate that the L.I.C. of India required the premises for its use immediately. The notice dated 6.8.2007 was not acted upon by the defendant lessee, L.I.C. of India again informed the defendant lessee under notice dated 5.9.2007, Annexure-2 that the premises is required to establish zonal office of the L.I.C. of India in the leased premises and in order to enable the L.I.C. of India to establish its zonal office in the premises, the premises be vacated immediately, failing which the lessor will have to initiate action under the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971(hereinafter referred to as the P.P. Act). Subsequent notice dated 5.9.2007, Annexure-2 was also not acted upon by the defendant respondent no.1, L.I.C. of India thereafter served legal notice dated 25.10.2007, Annexure-3. 3. Having received the aforesaid notices the defendant respondent no.1 filed the present suit to declare that L.I.C. of India had no right to issue notice dated 6.8.2007 and 5.9.2007, Annexures-1, 2 which were wholly illegal and contrary to the terms of lease deed dated 24.4.2007, Annexure-1 and to issue temporary injunction restraining the L.I.C. of India from taking any action contrary to the terms of the lease. During the pendency of the suit L.I.C. of India initiated proceeding under the P.P. Act before the Estate Officer so as to enable L.I.C. of India to recover possession of the Public Premises pursuant to the determination of the lease under notice dated 6.8.2007, Annexure-1. The Estate Officer issued notice in response whereto, the plaintiff respondent no.1 appeared before the Estate Officer. Having participated in the proceeding before the Estate Officer before any eviction order could be passed, the plaintiff respondent no.1 filed amendment petition dated 16.7.2008, Annexure-8 seeking addition of paragraph 12A in the plaint to the effect that P.P. Act has no application to the facts of the case and the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed with the eviction proceeding. In response to the amendment petition the L.I.C. of India filed its reply, Annexure-9, in paragraph-6 whereof it has been specifically stated that the proceedings for eviction from Public Premises initiated before the Estate Officer under P.P. Act cannot be questioned in the civil court as the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit in respect of eviction from Public Premises initiated in terms of the P.P. Act is barred and wholly without jurisdiction in view of Sections 10, 15 of the P.P. Act. The court below conveniently ignored the submissions made in paragraph-6 of reply, Annexure-9 as also the provisions of Sections 2(e), (2)(ii), 10, 15 of the P.P. Act and allowed the amendment petition under order dated 26.6.2009, Annexure-10 assuming jurisdiction making the provisions of the P.P. Act nugatory, which is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and fit to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforesaid submission relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and another Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 855, paragraphs-25, 33, 34 and submitted that premises belonging to L.I.C. of India is a Public Premises under the P.P. Act as L.I.C. of India has been established under a Central Act and its entire paid up capital vests in the Central Government. L.I.C. of India having determined the lease under notice dated 6.8.2007, Annexure-1 was authorized/ competent to initiate proceedings before the Estate Officer for eviction of plaintiff respondent no.1 under Sections 4 and 5 of the P.P. Act. L.I.C. of India having determined the lease under notice dated 6.8.2007, Annexure-1 was authorized/ competent to initiate proceedings before the Estate Officer for eviction of plaintiff respondent no.1 under Sections 4 and 5 of the P.P. Act. Section 4 requires issue of notice by the Estate Officer to the unauthorised occupant of any Public Premises requiring him to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. Section 5 provides for production of evidence in support of cause shown by the person who is in unauthorised occupation of the Public Premises and has been served with notice under Section 4 of the P.P. Act. The Estate Officer is not only obliged to give unauthorised occupant personal hearing but he is also required to record the summary of evidence tendered before him. The validity of the notice determining the lease is also to be considered by the Estate Officer. Section 9 confers right of appeal against the order of the Estate Officer and the appeal has to be heard either by the District Judge of the district in which the Public Premises is situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than 10 years standing as the District Judge may designate in that behalf. Section 10 provides for finality of the orders passed by the Estate Officer or appellate authority under the P.P. Act. Section 15 of the P.P. Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of Public Premises. It is submitted with reference to the aforesaid provisions of the P.P. Act that after determination of the lease deed dated 24.4.2007, Annexure-1 executed in favour of plaintiff respondent no.1 under notice dated 6.8.2007, Annexure-1 proceeding under the P.P. Act was initiated for securing eviction of plaintiff respondent no.1, which could not have been assailed before the civil court by seeking the impugned amendment. The court below while considering the request of the plaintiff respondent no.1 for amendment in the plaint ought to have considered Section 15 of the P.P. Act and rejected the request. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent no.1 opposed the aforesaid submission with reference to the two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Bakshi and others Vs. Dharam Dev & ors. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent no.1 opposed the aforesaid submission with reference to the two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Bakshi and others Vs. Dharam Dev & ors. 2002(2) PLJR 187, paragraph-6 and Abdul Gafur and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 97, paragraphs 16, 19. It is useful to quote paragraph 16 of the judgment in the case of Abdul Gafur (supra). “16. Section 9 of the Code provides that the civil court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting the suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. To put it differently, as per Section 9 of the Code, in all types of civil disputes, the civil courts have inherent jurisdiction unless a part of that jurisdiction is carved out from such jurisdiction, expressly or by necessary implication by any statutory provision and conferred on other tribunal or authority. Thus, the law confers on every person an inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature of one’s choice, at one’s peril, howsoever frivolous the claim may be, unless it is barred by a statute. It would appear that reliance placed by the counsel for the plaintiff respondent over the aforesaid judgments is wholly misplaced in view of the aforediscussed provisions of the P.P. Act and Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature accepting the suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred under any statute. Section 15 of the P.P. Act has specifically barred the jurisdiction of all courts to entertain a suit or proceeding in respect of eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any Public Premises and in view of the specific bar the request of the plaintiff respondent no.1 to allow the amendment questioning the jurisdiction of Estate Officer to entertain proceeding for eviction of plaintiff respondent no.1 should have been rejected. 6. 6. The court below having allowed the amendment prayed for under order dated 26.6.2009, Annexure-10 ignoring the specific bar contained in Section 15 of the P.P. Act raised in paragraph-6 of the reply petition, Annexure-9 and thereby assuming jurisdiction to try the suit, I not only set aside the order dated 26.6.2009, Annexure-10 but also direct that this order be placed before the Standing Committee for taking appropriate action against the judicial officer who passed the impugned order ignoring the bar under Section 15 of the P.P. Act.