Sir John Edge, C.J and Tyrrell, J.:— This is a suit for pre-emption. The first Court dismissed the suit on the single ground that it was barred under s. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure by what had taken place in a previous pre-emption suit between the parties. The Commissioner of Jhansi held on appeal that there was no bar, and remanded the case under s. 562. From that order this appeal has been brought. The plaint in the previous pre-emption suit had, after the issues had been framed, been rejected on the ground that, on the plaint, the plaintiff had not shown any cause of action, that is, that having alleged the sale to be fraudulent, illegal, and void as against him, he could not claim pre-emption. We are of opinion that the order of remand was properly made. It has been contended that s. 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure could only be applied before registration of the plaint, and that the order in the pre-emption suit of rejection of the plaint, having been made after registration, must be treated as an order of dismissal of the suit, and not as an order of rejection of the plaint. In support of this contention, [555] that s. 54 can only be applied prior to the registration of the plaint, Pandit Sundar Lal cited a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Valiya Kasava Vadhyar v. Suppan Nair(1) and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Hibibul Hossein v. Mahomed Reza(2). With regard to these judgments it is to be observed that the learned Judges gave no reason for the conclusion at which they had arrived. It was contended that s. 54, being found in Chapter V which bears the heading “of the institution of suits,” must be deemed to relate only to the procedure prior to registration. That this argument could not apply to all the sections included in Chapter V is obvious by a reference to s. 53, under which, on the grounds therein mentioned, the Court may reject a plaint at or before the first hearing. The first hearing must necessarily follow the registration. In s. 53 there is provided a limitation as to time. S. 54 provides no such limitation, and apparently s. 54 is applicable at any stage of the suit. Our brother Mahmood, at page 101 of the report of his judgment in the case of (Damodar Das v. Gokal Chand, is reported to have said, “What I have said does not, of course, apply to rejection of plaints under s. 54, wherein no words importing a limitation of time occur.” We think that our brother Mahmood took a proper view of s. 54. A similar view was taken of a somewhat corresponding section in the previous Code of Civil Procedure. The Madras High Court in the case of Chetti Gaundan v. Sundaram Pillai decided that the Court had power to reject a plaint as barred by limitation after the plaint had been registered. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Ram Gutty v. Goonomonee Dabee(3) held that the Munsif in that case could reject and need not dismiss a plaint which was under-valued, after the evidence had been received. The Calcutta Court also in the case of Musammat Edoo v. Shaikh Hefazut Hossein(4) held that a plaint might be rejected even in the High Court on the ground of stamp after the suit had come up from the lower Court. It appears to us that we cannot look on s. 54 as being limited in [556] time by the mere fact that it is included in Chapter V or that it precedes in the Code the sections relating to rejection, fixing of issues and other sections of that kind. The section appears to us to be one which is capable of being and is intended to be applied at any stage of the suit. If it was intended to limit s. 54, we should have expected to have found in it some words creating limitation, when we find there are such words in s. 53, which immediately precedes it. This order rejecting the plaint was one within the meaning of s. 56; it therefore creates no bar to the present suit. Pandit Sundar Lal also raised the question of limitation, but as this subject has not been dealt with by either of the Courts below, he has not pressed that contention. That is one of the subjects which must be dealt with during the suit.
The order below is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.