Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is one of the opposite-parties in Case No.29 of 2013, is aggrieved of order dated 12.05.2015 by which his application dated 19.07.2013 has been rejected.
(2.) Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 12.05.2015 is a cryptic order; it does not deal with the objection raised by the opposite-parties in their application dated 19.07.2013.
(3.) Mr. Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under 2nd proviso to section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 the present suit is barred.;