Partly allowed

Hukam Singh v. District Town Pallner Gurgaon

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Apr 2011CR/5956/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a revision, modifying the trial court's order rejecting the plaint to direct its return to the petitioner for presentation before the Tribunal within three months, due to respondents' prayer for transfer under the relevant Act.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting the plaint is modified. The plaint is returned for presentation before the Tribunal within three months. Disposal stay for three months.

Hukam Singh Vs District Town Pallner Gurgaon — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 5956 of 2003 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 5956 of 2003 Date of Decision: 18.4.2011

Hukam Singh

..Petitioner

Versus

District Town Planner and another ..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶9

Present:-Mr. Manoj Bajaj Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

The petitioner impugns an order dated 20.10.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate I Class, Gurgaon, under Order 7 Rule 11, of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, “the Code”) rejecting the plaint.

¶12

The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from demolishing his temporary construction. The petitioner, in essence, challenged a show cause notice issued under section 12 (2) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), requiring him to abide by provisions of the Act.

¶13

The respondents filed a written statement and thereafter moved an application for transfer of the case from the Civil Court to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Vide order dated 20.10.2003, the trial Court rejected the plaint by holding that Section 21 of the Act prohibits a Civil Court from entertaining and deciding any question relating to any matter that arises under the Act.

¶14

Civil Revision No. 5956 of 2003 2

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the respondents have prayed that the suit should be transferred to the Tribunal, the trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint. It is further submitted that instead of rejecting the plaint, the trial court should have returned the plaint for presentation before the Tribunal

¶16

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the plaint, the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint. In fairness to the prayer made in the application filed by the respondents, the trial Court should have returned the plaint for presentation before the Tribunal instead of rejecting the plaint.

¶17

In this view of the matter, the order passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the plaint is returned to the petitioner for presentation before the Tribunal within three months.

¶18

Dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of three months.

¶19

The revision stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶20

18.4.2011 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) VK JUDGE

Hukam Singh v. District Town Pallner Gurgaon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukam Singh v. District Town Pallner Gurgaon

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

Ramjani Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sumiti Sagar Vs Balbir Singh Jain & Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs Financial Commissioner, Hry. & Ors.

(O&M) Darshan Ram Vs Bachna

Amrik Singh Vs Gurmit Singh etc.

Neena Bhalla and Ors. Vs Sunita