Allowed

HUDA and Another v. Ram Kumar Bansal

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Oct 2009RSA/3745/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the appeal against the suit for rendition of accounts decreed by Courts below, finding that Section 50 of the HUDA Act does not bar civil court jurisdiction and the court fee objection was premature without adjudication or error at rendition stage.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the decree for rendition of accounts was dismissed with costs.

HUDA and Another Vs Ram Kumar Bansal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

R.S.A. No. 3745 of 2009 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

R.S.A. No. 3745 of 2009 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: October 15, 2009

HUDA and another

…..Appellants

Vs.

Ram Kumar Bansal

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present:Mr. A.K,. Kansal, Advocate for the appellants.

¶14

-.-

¶15

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Suit of the plaintiff- respondent for rendition of accounts against the defendant- appellants stands allowed by the trial Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court.

¶17

Counsel for the appellants has contended that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are without jurisdiction as the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 50 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

¶18

R.S.A. No. 3745 of 2009 [2]

¶19

Second contention raised by counsel for the defendant- appellants is that advalorem Court fee was required to be affixed as suit field by the plaintiffrespondent is for rendition of accounts.

¶20

After hearing counsel for the appellants and going through the judgments passed by the Courts below, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff- respondent has been able to establish that he is owner of the land by transfer and that he has made payments from the year 1979 to 1984. His suit has been decreed for rendition of accounts. The defendantpetitioners being an accounting party having received money. Section 50 of the Act reads as follows:-

¶21

“50. Finality of orders and bar of jurisdiction of civil courts:- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, every order passed or direction issued by the State Government or order passed or notice issued by the Authority or its officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings.

¶22

(2) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered by this Act or the rules or regulation made thereunder.”1 The facts and circumstances of the present case indicate that a

¶23

civil Court will be debarred to entertain a suit in respect of any matter, the

¶24

R.S.A. No. 3745 of 2009 [3]

¶25

cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered and determined under the Act or the rules or regulation made thereunder. The plaintiff- respondent has merely sought the rendition of accounts regarding the alleged payments made by him. For settling the dispute regarding rendition of accounts, no authority has been prescribed under the Act. The case does not fall under Section 50 (2) of the Act. No ground is made out for interference in well reasoned order passed by the Courts below.

¶26

Counsel for the appellants further contended that for any dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant authority, can be referred to Arbitrator.

¶27

Since neither any application was filed to make a reference to the Arbitrator nor any proceedings towards adjudication by Arbitrator had been taken, the said plea will not be available at this stage to the appellants. Dismissed.

¶28

So far as the objection of the appellants regarding the suit being bad for not filing of proper ad-valorem Court fee is concerned, it is made clear that for the purpose of rendition of accounts, the appropriate Court fee had been affixed by the plaintiff- respondent.

¶29

A perusal of the judgments of Courts below indicate that the issue regarding Court fee had not been pressed by the defendant- appellants. However, it is made clear that in case after rendition of accounts, the appellants are able to make out a case regarding affixation of Court fee, it

¶30

R.S.A. No. 3745 of 2009 [4]

¶31

will always be open to the concerned Court to direct the plaintiff to affix the

¶32

Court fee in accordance with law.

¶33

October 15, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

HUDA and Another v. Ram Kumar Bansal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

HUDA and Another v. Ram Kumar Bansal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janki Parshad Vs Gram Panchayat Vill. Jasawas and Ors.

Sat Parkash Bhalla Vs Raj Kumar and Ors.

Harcharan Singh @ Harcharan Dass Vs Mahant Ganesh Dass and Ors.

Garg Rice Industries, Matlauda Vs Haryana Warehousing Corp. and Anr.

Baljit Singh and Ors. Vs Bhag Singh and Ors.

Major Singh Vs Surjit Singh and Ors.