Adhirani Narain Kumari, Raj Rani of Burdwan vs Raghu Mohapatro

Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.—The plaintiff in this case sues under Act X of 1859 for rent for the years 1287, 1288 and 1289. It appears that in 1289, after the rent for that year had become due, she sued for rent for the year 1286. The District Judge has held upon the. authority of Taruck Chunder Mookerjee v. Panchu Mohini Debya ILR 6 Cal. 791 that the suit is barred. The only question which we have to decide is whether the provisions of Section 43 of the CPC apply to suits under Act X of 1859. The point has not, so far as we are aware, been raised in, this Court. We find, however, that a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held in the case of Madho Prakash Singh v. Murli Manohar ILR 5 All. 406 that the Courts of Revenue in the Northwestern Provinces in those matters of procedure upon which the Bent Act of those provinces is silent, are governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, and that Section 43 is applicable to suits tried under the Northwestern Provinces Rent Act, 1881.

We see no reason to dissent from the view taken by the Allahabad Court, and we, therefore, dismiss this appeal without costs; no one appearing for the respondent.