IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Revision No.1832 of 2008
The Bihar State Housing Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
Lalit Bhawan, Bailey Road, P.S. Shashtrinagar, District-
Patna through its Managing Director
---- Defendant No.3 --- Petitioner.
Versus
1. Raj Kishore Singh, son of late B.P. Singh, resident of
Mohalla-Anandpuri (Ugna Apartment), Flat No.201, West
Boring Canal Road, P.S. Shri Krishnapuri, District-Patna
---- Plaintiff/Opposite Party.
2. M/S Grih Pravesh Engineers and Housing Development
Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Exhibition Road, Sri
Ram Bhawan, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna
---- Defendant/Opposite Party.
3. Sri Amiya Kumar Jha (A.K. Jha), son of late G.S. Jha,
resident of Ugna Apartment, Mohalla_Anandpuri, P.O. &
P.S. Sri Krishnapuri, District-Patna, Ex-Secretary of
Gunjan Sahakari Grih Nirman Samittee, Patna.
---- Defendant No.2/Opposite Party.
----------------------------------
with
Civil Revision No.1833 of 2008
The Bihar State Housing Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
Lalit Bhawan, Bailey Road, P.S. Shashtrinagar, District-
Patna through its Managing Director
—- Defendant — Petitioner.
Versus
1. Sri Navin Kumar, son of Shri Parmeshwar Prasad
Singh, resident of Village-Baraon (Post), P.S. Nokha,
District-Rohtas, at present resident of Flat No.A/202,
Ugna Apartment, Anandpuri, Boring Canal Road, P.O.-
G.P.O., P.S. Sri Krishnapuri, District- Patna.
—- Plaintiff/Opposite Party.
2. M/S Grih Pravesh Engineers and Housing
Development Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at
Exhibition Road, Sri Ram Bhawan, P.S. Gandhi
Maidan, District- Patna
—- Defendant/Opposite
Party.
3. Sri Amiya Kumar Jha (A.K. Jha), son of late G.S.
Jha, resident of Ugna Apartment, Mohalla_Anandpuri,
2
P.O. & P.S. Sri Krishnapuri, District-Patna, Ex-
Secretary of Gunjan Sahakari Grih Nirman Samittee,
Patna.
—- Defendant No.2/Opposite
Party.
———————————-
18. 15.11.2011 We shall first take up C. R. No.1832 of
2008. Heard Mr. Purushottam Jha for the petitioner, and
Mr. R. K. Shukla for opposite party no.1. This civil
revision application under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure has been preferred by defendant no.3 of
Title Suit No. 495 of 2004, and is directed against the
order dated 23.7.2008, passed by the learned Sub-
Ordinate Judge I Court, Patna, whereby he has held that
the preliminary objection raised by this defendant as to
the maintainability of the suit shall be taken up at the
time of hearing of the suit.
2. Opposite party no.1 herein instituted the
suit for certain reliefs. Defendant no.3 (the petitioner
herein) filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11(d),
read with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
submitting therein that, in view of the bar engrafted in
Section 57, read with Section 48, of the Bihar Co-
operative Societies Act, 1935, the suit in its present
3
frame is not maintainable. On a perusal of the materials
on record, the learned trial court has come to the
conclusion that this shall be taken up at the time of
hearing of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied on the following reported judgments:
(i) The Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs.
Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and others,
(1976) 1 SCC 496.
(ii) Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation and others Vs. Deen Dayal
Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 697.
(iii) Radha Krishna Jaiswal Vs. Sheela
Kanchan & others, 2003(1) P.L.J.R. 18.
3. We have perused the materials on record
and considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties. Law is well settled that the Court before
whom the matter is pending, and whose jurisdiction has
been challenged, has the authority to decide its own
jurisdiction. It appears to us from a perusal of the
impugned order that the learned trial court is of the
view that the question of jurisdiction in the instant suit
is a mixed question of facts and law and will, therefore,
be taken up at the time of hearing of the suit. We do not
find any error in the impugned order. The learned trial
court shall frame a specific issue in that behalf and will,
4
inter alia, be guided by the authoritative pronouncement
of the Supreme Court in Premier Automobiles Ltd
(supra).
C. R. No. 1833 of 2008.
4. Heard Mr. Purushottam Jha for the
petitioner, and Mr. R. K. Sinha for opposite party no.1.
One of the defendants of Title Suit No. 494 of 2004 has
preferred the present civil revision application, and is
directed against the order dated 23.7.2008, passed by
the learned Sub-ordinate Judge Ist Court, Patna,
whereby he has held that the preliminary objection
raised by this defendant as to the maintainability of the
suit shall be taken up at the time of hearing of the suit.
The present civil revision application is entirely covered
by the aforesaid order dismissing C.R. No. 1832 of
2008.
5. In the result, C.R. No.1832 of 2008, and
C.R. No.1833 of 2008, are dismissed.
Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)