Quashed

Mannulal Pansari v. Nagarpalik Nigam Rajnandgaon

Chhattisgarh HC25 Jan 2022WP227/67/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the trial court erred in rejecting an urgent application for temporary injunction filed under Section 151 CPC before the Section 80 notice period expired, relying on precedent allowing such relief to prevent irreparable loss.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of trial court returning the plaint and denying temporary injunction was set aside; respondent courts to decide fresh application in accordance with law.

Mannulal Pansari Vs Nagarpalik Nigam Rajnandgaon — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP(227) No.67 of 2022

¶5

Mannulal Pansari S/o Late Kheduram Pansari Aged About 65 Years Occupation Retired Government Officer, R/o Pandurang Colony, Stationpara, Rajnadgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Nagarpalik Nigam Rajnandgaon Through Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ------------------------Defendant No. 1

¶8

Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Rajnandgaon, C.G. Through Asst. Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. -------------------------Defendant No. 2

¶9

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. -------------------------Defendant No. 3

¶10

Sharad Sinha Ward Parshad, Ward No. 25, R/o Hamalpara, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Through The Collector, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. -------------------------Defendant No. 4

¶11

Jai Mudaliyar S/o Late Krishna Mudaliyar Aged About 38 Years R/o Stationpara, Near Over Bridge, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. -------------------------Defendant No. 5

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner: Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate. For respective Respondents: Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate and Shri Gurudev I. Sharan, G.A.

¶14

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board

¶15

25.01.2022

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon (CG) whereby the trial Court has ordered for return of the plaint and has also declined to entertain the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 151 and under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.

¶17

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that looking to the acute urgency in the matter, since the Corporation was bent upon to demolish the structure of the Plaintiff, he had filed the aforesaid application.

¶19

It is settled legal position in the judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Kumari Bai and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors reported in AIR 2006 CG 52 and the judgment relied upon in the matter of Ram Krishna Parashar vs. Chironji Lal Vaishya and Ors reported in 1977 JLJ 184 in which, the questions referred were answered as under:-

¶20

“(1) Where the period of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not expired, an intending plaintiff can file a substantive application praying for grant of a temporary injunction. Such an application is not one under section 151, C.P.C, but it is necessarily one under the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein inherent powers of the Court are invoked for grant of a temporary injunction. Such an order will only be operative till the party concerned is able to file a suit and is able to obtain a temporary injunction from the Court in the suit itself.

¶21

(2). The Court acting on such an application can grant a temporary injunction having resort to the inherent powers saved by section 151, C.P.C.”

¶22

In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, the order passed by the trial Court is bad in law and suffers from jurisdictional defects, which warrants interference of this Court, therefore, this Petition has been filed.

¶23

Considering the nature of the Petition, service of notice against Respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶24

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Petition minutely.

¶25

Considering the judgment cited by learned Counsel for the Petitioner regarding filing the suit under sub-section (1) of Section 401 of the Municipal Corporation Act, which explains that in case of urgency and exigencies, the

¶26

¶27

party can approach the Civil Court by filing an application under Section 151 CPC for grant of a temporary injunction and the Civil Court acting on such an application, can grant a temporary injunction having regard to the inherent powers and that such an order will only be operative till the party concerned is able to file a suit and is able to obtain a temporary injunction from the Court in the suit itself. So the intending Plaintiff has a remedy to institute a claim by issuing a notice and filing an application seeking temporary injunction and making a prayer to the Court to exercise inherent power enclosing a copy of the intended plaint to be registered as a suit upon expiry of statutory period of notice.

¶28

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the finding of the trial Court while passing the impugned order by not entertaining the said application as not maintainable is not in accordance with law, therefore, the same is liable to be and is hereby set aside. It is made clear that if the Petitioner makes a fresh application before the concerned Court, then such Court is expected to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶29

The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶30

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

¶31

Priya

Mannulal Pansari v. Nagarpalik Nigam Rajnandgaon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mannulal Pansari v. Nagarpalik Nigam Rajnandgaon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Josh Morish Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sakundram Vs Rupsingh

Atin Kumar Majumdar Vs State of C.G.

Smt. Sujata Bundela Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Kumar Vs Ku Shreya Mishra

Sukhmandas Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh