Baikuntha Chandra Das Gupta and Others vs Suresh Chandra Dutta and Another

Nasim Ali, J.—These two appeals are by the Plaintiffs against the decision of Lodge, J., in a suit instituted by them under secs. 36 and 37 of the Public Demands Recovery Act on the ground that the Secretary of State for India in Council was not impleaded as Defendant in the suit. The view taken by the learned Judge has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gaibandha Loan Office v. Musst. Saiyadunnessa Khatun* in Appeal from Original Decree No. 151 of 1939 and I see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Judges in that case. The learned Advocate for the Appellants cited certain decisions in which it was held that the Secretary of State is not a necessary party in suits for setting aside of sales held under the Revenue Sale Law or for declaration that sales held under the Public Demands Recovery Act are void.

It is not necessary to express any opinion as regards these decisions in-as much as the suit before us is in substance a suit for setting aside a sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act. I see no reason to interfere with the decree of Lodge, J., dismissing the Plaintiffs'' suit.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs.

Blank, J.

I agree.