JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 2642 of 2015 Heard the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of one Chhutu Lal Singh who claims to be the full brother of the defendant-respondent no.1. 3. Learned counsel for the said Chhutu Lal Singh submits that the respondent no.1 is his own brother but still the plaintiff has not impleaded the said Chhutu Lal Singh as a party in Title Suit No. 04 of 2005 of the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Seriakella out of which this First Appeal has arisen. It is further submitted that the respondent no.1 is a person of cheating mentality, so the said Chhutu Lal Singh has filed the Title Partition Suit No. 22 of 2007. Learned counsel for the said Chhutu Lal Singh though in paragraph no.5 of the interlocutory application has mentioned that the said Title Partition Suit No. 22 of 2007 is pending in the Court of C.J.M (S.D.) but in fact the same is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division-I, Seriakella. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the said Chhutu Lal Singh that the respondent no.1 became the adopted son of Late Biswanath Singh who was the uncle of both Chhutu Lal Singh and respondent no.1 and has got transferred the disputed land of this appeal on the basis of false document. Chhutu Lal Singh issued a notice on 10.04.2015 through his counsel but the same has not been replied to by the respondent no.1. It is further submitted that in the written statement filed in Title Suit No.4 of 2005, the respondent-defendant no.1 has mentioned the name of his father as Late Ram Prasad Singh and adopted son of Biswanath Singh Babu. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be added as an intervener-respondent in this appeal. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 submits that the Title Suit No.4 of 2005 has been filed by the appellant herein in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Seraikella inter alia with the prayer for declaring the right, title and interest and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and declaring that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.47 of 1994 in the court of Munsif, Seraikella was null and void, without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the impugned order of this appeal dated 02.05.2006, the Sub-Judge-I, Seraikella has held that the suit is hit by the provision of Order-VII, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and rejected the same. It is further submitted that in Title Suit No. 04 of 2005 or Title Suit No. 47 of 1994 admittedly the Chhutu Lal Singh is not the party and admittedly Chhutu Lal Singh has filed Title Partition Suit No. 22 of 2007 in appropriate court alleging commission of fraud by the respondent no.1. It is then submitted that the commission of fraud, if any, is not the subject matter of Title Suit No. 47 of 1994 or Title Suit No. 04 of 2005 and hence not the subject matter of this appeal, therefore Chhutu Lal Singh is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the Title Suit No. 04 of 2005 or of this appeal. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer to add Chhutu Lal Singh as an intervener-respondent be rejected. 5. After hearing the submission made at the Bar and after going through the record, I find force in the submission of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1. Undisputedly, Chhutu Lal Singh is neither a party in Title Suit No. 47 of 1994 nor in Title Suit No. 04 of 2005. The grounds basing upon which the Chhutu Lal Singh claims to be impleaded as a party-respondent in this appeal is that the respondent-defendant no.1 has committed fraud which has not even been specified in this interlocutory application as to what sort of fraud the respondent no.1 has committed. Under the aforesaid facts this Court is of the view that Chhutu Lal Singh is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to this appeal. Accordingly, the prayer to add Chhutu Lal Singh as an intervener-respondent is rejected. 6. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. F.A. No. 882 of 2006 1. The report submitted by the Registrar General is placed. It has been reported that the matter was listed on 25.07.2017 at serial no. 1 under the heading “for Hearing” but the same could not be taken up by the Bench on 25.07.2017. Keep the same in the record. 2. F.A. No. 882 of 2006 1. The report submitted by the Registrar General is placed. It has been reported that the matter was listed on 25.07.2017 at serial no. 1 under the heading “for Hearing” but the same could not be taken up by the Bench on 25.07.2017. Keep the same in the record. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2006 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Seraikella in Title Suit No. 4 of 2005 whereby and where under the learned trial court has rejected the plaint under Order –VII, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief is that the plaintiff represented the Forest Department of the State of Jharkhand. The suit property is part and parcel of the land bearing plot no. 204 & 205 and stands recorded in the name of Ban Bibhag, State of Jharkhand as Jungle in the Survey of 1958-64 by Notification dated 24.05.1958 under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The land bearing plot no. 204 & 205 along with other lands of Tiruldah Mauja was declared as protected forest. The area was surrounded from all the sides with pillars put by the Forest Department and the plots are prohibited forest since 1958. So the suit land is a protected forest. Hence no right, title and interest of any person is involved over the suit land. The defendant-respondent no.1 filed Title Suit No. 47 of 1994 in the court of Munsif, Seraikella by suppressing the fact and laying a false claim over the suit property. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 04.09.1995 by the learned Munsif, Seraikella, as the defendant nos. 1 & 2 of the said Title Suit No. 47 of 1994 being the State of Bihar and D.F.O., North Division, failed to put a contest to the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that it came to its notice that some of the defendants preferred an appeal against the ex-parte decree dated 04.09.1995 vide Title Appeal No. 47 of 1995 and by order dated 24.07.1999 the Additional District Judge, Seraikella dismissed the appeal as abated for the reason of non-substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The plaintiff further pleaded that it came to its notice that some of the defendants preferred an appeal against the ex-parte decree dated 04.09.1995 vide Title Appeal No. 47 of 1995 and by order dated 24.07.1999 the Additional District Judge, Seraikella dismissed the appeal as abated for the reason of non-substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. Further, the plaintiff quoted the contents of the plaint filed by the defendant no.1 as plaintiff in Title Suit No. 47 of 1994 and consequent upon that the respondent-defendant no.1 has sold the plot no. 409 (Part) describing the land as Don-III agricultural land of area 4.06 acres to the defendant no.2. Thereafter, the defendant no.2 got the property mutated in his name vide Mutation Case no. 406 of 2004-05 in the court of Circle Officer, Chandil on 19.09.2004. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant no.1 is not an adopted son of Bishwanath Singh Babu rather he is the son of Ram Prasad Singh. The plaintiff suppressed the fact that by notification dated 24.05.1958, the suit land besides other lands have been declared as protected forest and thereby played fraud upon the court in respect of Schedule-B property of Title Suit No. 47 of 1994 and thus the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 47 of 1994 came to court with unclean hands with false statement. The plaintiff described the nature/quality of the land erroneously as Gora-III though in the R.S. Record the plot has been mentioned as Jungle. Hence the sale deed executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is null and void, without jurisdiction and void ab initio. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that the ex-parte decree passed by the learned court of Munsif, Seraikella is without jurisdiction because the same has been obtained by defendant no.1 by suppression of true facts and by furnishing wrong particulars. The decree is without jurisdiction also as the Civil Court is not vested with jurisdiction to declare right, title and interest ignoring the notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act. The defendant no.2 intended to raise some structure in recent past of filing the suit and on being objected by the Officers of the plaintiff, the defendant no.2 came out with the plea that he has acquired the property by virtue of registered sale deed from the defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 intended to raise some structure in recent past of filing the suit and on being objected by the Officers of the plaintiff, the defendant no.2 came out with the plea that he has acquired the property by virtue of registered sale deed from the defendant no.1. The plaintiff through his agencies got an enquiry instituted into the whole affairs and then only found out the aforesaid facts. The plaintiff through the government pleader got an application submitted for obtaining copies of relevant record on 21.03.2005 and ultimately the copy was provided to the government pleader of the entire record in the end of March, 2005. After its best efforts, the plaintiff could know of the above mentioned facts only in the month of April, 2005. Hence, the plaintiff could not take action earlier for getting the ex-parte decree set aside or for other reliefs earlier than March, 2005. The plaintiff prayed for following reliefs:- (a) A decree declaring plaintiff’s right, title and interest or possession over the suit property or if during pendency of the suit any portion of suit property is unauthorisedly possessed by Defendants then for recovery of Khas possession. (b) A decree declaring that Judgment and Decree passed in Title Suit 47 of 1994 (Forty seven of nineteen hundred ninety four) of the court of Munsif, Seraikella are null and void, without jurisdiction, not binding upon the plaintiff and does not confer any right, title and interest or possession upon the defendants. (c) A Decree declaring the Deed of Sale No. 3459 (Three thousand four hundred fifty nine) dated 02.08.2004 (Second day of August two thousand four) in favour of Defendant No.2 as null and void and does not create any right, title and interest in favour of Defendant No.2. (d) Costs of the Suit. (e) Any other relief or reliefs to which plaintiff be deemed to be entitled to in law or equity. 4. In his written statement, the defendant no.1 inter-alia apart from usual defence pleaded that the defendant no.1 has sold out most of the lands out of the suit property. The purchasers and the power of attorney holders of the defendant no.1 are in actual physical possession of most of the suit lands hence they are the necessary parties to the suit. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit is barred by res-judicata. The purchasers and the power of attorney holders of the defendant no.1 are in actual physical possession of most of the suit lands hence they are the necessary parties to the suit. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit is barred by res-judicata. The plaintiff cannot litigate with the defendant no.1 on the same subject matter which was finally decided by the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction and the suit is otherwise also hit by constructive res-judicata. The plaintiff forest department has got full knowledge of the suit and decree passed in Title Suit No.47 of 1994. The Deputy Commissioner after obtaining legal information from the government pleader mutated the name of the defendant in respect of 50.6 acre of land in respect of plot nos.409, 410, 411 and 428. The forest department also filed their objection in the mutation case which was turned down by the competent authority. Hence, the plaintiff being the wing of State of Jharkhand has got no right to challenge the status of the plaintiff as raiyat in the suit property. Hence, the same is barred under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. It has further been pleaded that the suit land was previously in occupation of Bishwanath Singh Babu and thereafter, it came in the occupation of the answering defendant being the adopted son of Bishwanath Singh Babu. It is further pleaded by the defendants that prior to the institution of the suit the defendant sent notice under Section 80 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the State Government and Forest Department and those notices were duly acknowledged by the D.C. Singhbhum West and D.F.O. North Division at Chaibasa. Hence, it was contended by the defendants that the decree passed in Title Suit No.47 of 1994 is binding upon the plaintiff and also on the State Government. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff suppressed the fact that the lands of plot nos. 204 and 205 previously belonged to the ex-landlord Narayan Singh Babu. The defendant denied that plot nos. 204 and 205 was ever recorded in the name of Ban Bibhag, State of Jharkhand in the Survey of 1958-64 and pleaded that those plots were recorded under Khata No.20 in the name of ex-landlord which was published finally in the year 1911. 204 and 205 previously belonged to the ex-landlord Narayan Singh Babu. The defendant denied that plot nos. 204 and 205 was ever recorded in the name of Ban Bibhag, State of Jharkhand in the Survey of 1958-64 and pleaded that those plots were recorded under Khata No.20 in the name of ex-landlord which was published finally in the year 1911. The defendant no.2 in his separate written statement besides the usual defence also made the similar averments as that of the defendant no.1. It was further pleaded by the defendant no.2 that the defendant no.2 is a registered S.S.I. Unit and it has made a total investment of more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- in the site to establish an industry. 5. After filing of the written statement on 21.09.2005, the defendant no.2 filed the petition under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned trial court in the impugned judgment has observed that on the basis of the pleadings it appeared to the trial court that the plaintiff wants to get declare the ex-parte order passed by the Munsif as null and void and observed that Sub-Judge-I does not have the power to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif. Learned trial court further observed that the plaintiff should have filed the petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed by the Munsif and after dismissal of the first appeal by the Additional District Judge, Seraikella, the plaintiff should have filed the second appeal before the High Court but instead the plaintiff has filed the instant suit for declaration of right, title and interest and according to the trial court, there is no provision in law that the Sub-Judge-I can declare the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif as null and void. So the plaint filed by the plaintiff is barred by statutory law. The trial court further observed that the plaintiff has full knowledge in the year 1999 about the suit yet he has filed the suit in the year 2005 hence, it is barred by limitation also and hence the trial court rejected the prayer. 6. Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court erred by observing that the Sub-Judge-I does not have the power to declare a decree passed by the Munsif as null and void. It is further submitted by Mr. 6. Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court erred by observing that the Sub-Judge-I does not have the power to declare a decree passed by the Munsif as null and void. It is further submitted by Mr. Shamim Akhtar that the trial court failed to take note of the fact that in the plaint itself, the plaintiff has categorically stated that they came to know about the decree passed in Title Suit No.47 of 1994 in March, 2005 and the suit was filed on 04.05.2005 and as per article 59 of Limitation Act, 1963 since the period of limitation for filing the suit for cancelling or setting aside a decree is three years from the date when the fact entitling the plaintiff to have the decree cancelled first become known to the plaintiff hence the suit is still within time and certainly the trial court erred by rejecting the plaint thereby not giving the opportunity to the plaintiff to pursue its claim that the suit is within time. It is further submitted by Mr. Shamim Akhtar, there is no admission in the plaint that the plaintiff was aware about the ex-parte decree prior to March 2005. It is further submitted by Mr. Shamim Akhtar that it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant herein did not prefer Title Appeal No. 47 of 1995 and even though there is no whisper in the plaint that on the strength of judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 47 of 1994 and also the order passed in Title Appeal No. 47 of 1995, the learned Deputy Commissioner after taking legal opinion from the G.P. Seraikella for the mutation of the name of the defendant no.1 and at that time the Forest Department filed objection in the mutation case which was turned down by the competent authority still the trial court has quoted these imaginary facts without revealing the source from which it got knowledge about the same and incorporated the said imaginary facts in the impugned order to come to a conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. It is, further, submitted by Mr. It is, further, submitted by Mr. Shamim Akhtar that it being a settled principle of law that the power under Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be exercised basing upon the averments made in the plaint and as the trial court has stated beyond the contents of the plaint to form his opinion that the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below be set aside. 7. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that besides the limitation, the suit itself is not maintainable as it has not been averred in the plaint that any fraud was played in the court in Title Suit No. 47 of 1994 in the Court of Munsif, Seraikella, hence the present suit is also barred. It is next submitted that in view of Section 12 of Code of Civil Procedure on either counts, the suit is not maintainable. Hence, it is submitted that the learned trial court having rightly rejected the plaint in rightful exercise of its power under Rule 11 Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only point for determination which cropped up in this appeal is “whether the learned trial court was proper in rejecting the plaint?” After carefully going through the plaint it is crystal clear that nowhere in the plaint the plaintiff has admitted that they were aware about the Title Suit No. 47 of 1994 in the Court of Munsif, Seraikella or the appeal therefrom which was numbered as Title Appeal No. 47 of 1995, any day before March, 2005. It is a settled principle of law that for deciding, whether the plaint discloses the cause of action or not, the court has only to see the averments in the plaint and accompanying documents relied upon in the plaint and the facts elicited from the plaintiff by exercise made under Order 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a settled principle of law that for deciding, whether the plaint discloses the cause of action or not, the court has only to see the averments in the plaint and accompanying documents relied upon in the plaint and the facts elicited from the plaintiff by exercise made under Order 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also settled principle of law that for the purpose of rejecting the plaint the court cannot go beyond the facts stated in the plaint as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Exphar SA and another v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. and another reported in AIR 2004 SC 1682 . As rightly submitted by Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellant and fairly submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents also, there is no averment in the plaint that on the strength of judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.47 of 1994 and also the order passed in Title Appeal No.47 of 1995, the learned Deputy Commissioner after taking legal opinion from the G.P. Seraikella for the mutation of the name of the defendant no.1 and at that time the Forest Department filed objection in the mutation case which was turned down by the competent authority. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that basing upon these premise, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. In view of the settled principle of law and the facts of the case as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned court below has erred by considering the facts which were not averred in the plaint to reject the plaint. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the Sub-Judge-I in Title Suit No.4 of 2005 dated 02.05.2006 is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. At this stage, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the defendants be given the liberty to raise the issue of limitation and also the jurisdiction of the court at appropriate stage during the trial. At this stage, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the defendants be given the liberty to raise the issue of limitation and also the jurisdiction of the court at appropriate stage during the trial. Since this Court has formed an opinion to set aside the impugned judgment, hence, this Court is not expressing any opinion at all regarding any of the issues involved in the suit and the defendants respondents are free to raise any objection to challenge the suit in the trial court including the ground of jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the plaint and issue of limitation also. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.05.2006 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Seraikella in Title Suit No. 4 of 2005 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 9. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgment for trial of the Title Suit No.4 of 2005 from the stage at which it was before passing of the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2006.