Dismissed

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Prabhu Lal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2015CSA/50/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC regarding the dismissal of a suit for non-filing of mandatory notice under the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act. The court allowed the objection regarding notice to be decided as a preliminary issue in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed with liberty to the defendants to raise the objection of non-compliance of notice under Section 109 of the Act of 1994 in the trial court as a preliminary issue.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Prabhu Lal and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.50/2015 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Prabhulal & Ors.

¶2

Judgment dated 04/03/2015

¶3

1 of 5

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

::: J U D G M E N T :::

¶6

S. B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.50/2015

¶7

State of Rajasthan through the District Collector, Chittorgarh & Ors. Vs. Prabhulal S/o Sh. Amba Lal, by caste Jat & Ors.

¶8

th Date of Judgment ::: 04 March, 2015 .

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

Mr. Manish Patel, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for the appellants/defendants.

¶13

¶14

The appellants/defendants, State of Rajasthan through District Collector, Chittorgarh, has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, whereby the first appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs being Civil Appeal No.15/2014 - Prabhulal & Ors. Vs. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti- Kapasan & Ors., was partly allowed and matter was remanded back to the learned trial court while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kapasan, Chittorgarh,

¶15

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.50/2015 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Prabhulal & Ors.

¶16

Judgment dated 04/03/2015

¶17

2 of 5

¶18

whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents being Civil Original Suit No.27/2014 Prabhulal & Ors. Vs. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti- Kapasan & Ors., was dismissed on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, 1908 filed by the present appellant, Panchayat Samiti- Kapasan.

¶19

The appellants/defendants, Panchayat Samiti- Kapasan, District: Chittorgarh, has filed the present second appeal in this Court purportedly raising a substantial question of law. In the present case, before the trial court since their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed on the ground that no prior notice under Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (Act of 1994) was served by the plaintiffs, Prabhulal and others, before filing the present suit for injunction for directing the Panchayat Samiti about tender issued by them for fishing as required under Section 109 of the Act of 1994, and consequently the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. However, the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs came to be partly allowed by the learned lower appellate court of Additional District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, remanding the case back to the learned trial court with the following observations: -

¶20

“पर�त� उक अध�न�यम क� ��र� 109 (1) (ख) म� "य�" शब� भ� उल��खखत ककय� गय� ह! और ��र� 109 (1) (ख) क� अ � र ज$ पररभ�ष� �' गय� ह!, उसक� अ��स�र स*�वर स�पतक� वस.�' य� उसक� हक क� ककस� घ$षण� क� ल�ए क$ई व�� छ$डकर व�� ह�त�क उतपन� ह$�� स� छ : म�ह क� भ�तर व�� यर ककय� ज� सक�� बत�य� ह!। इस पकरण म� ऐस� कह'� �ह'� ह! कक ककस� स*�वर स�पत- क� वस.�' क� क$ई व�� ह$ य� उसक� ककस� हक क� घ$षण� क� ल�ए क$ई व�� ह$। पकरण

¶21

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.50/2015 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Prabhulal & Ors.

¶22

Judgment dated 04/03/2015

¶23

3 of 5

¶24

म� व��पत क� प!र� स�.8 म� व�� ह�त�क बत�य� गय� ह! व$ पनतव��' स�.1 द�र� द��क 28.4.14 क$ मतसय आख�ट ह�त� व��'गण क� क�त�ध�क�र ससत ज�ब � D पर न�तव�� ज�र' कर�� व प � : द��क 9.5.14 क$ स�श$ध�त न�तव�� ज�र' कर�� स� व�� ह�त�क द��क 28.4.14 क$ उतपन� ह�आ और यह व�� द��क 21.5.14 क$ नय�य��य म� प�श कर द�य� गय� ज$ र�जस�� प�च�यत�र�ज अध�न�यम क� ��र� 109 (1) ( ख ) क� अ��स�र छ : म�ह क� भ�तर ह! सजसक� क$ई हव�� तवद�� अ��स* नय�य��य �� अप�� उक आ��श म� �ह'� द�य� ह!। तवद�� अ��स* नय�य��य द�र� म�त पनतव��' स�.1 द�र� पसत�त आव � � आ��श 7 न�यम 11 लस.प.स�. क� अ�तगFत र�जस*�� प�च�यत� र�ज अध�न�यम, 1994 क� ��र� 109 (1) (क) क� ह' अव�$क� कर यह आ��श प�ररत ककय� ह! ज$ तवध��स�र �ह'� ह!। उक अध�न�यम क� ��र� 109 (1) (ख) क� अ�तगFत स*�वर स�पत- क� वस.�' क� ल�ए य� उसक� हक क� ककस� घ$षण� क� ल�ए क$ई व�� क$ छ$डकर अ*�FतG च� स�पनत क� म�म�� म� पनतव��' क$ �$दटस � � � आवशयक �ह'� ह! और छ: म�स क� भ�तर व�� प�श कर�� आवशयक ह!। अत: पकरण क� तथयD क$ ��खत� ह�ए व��'गण क� अप�� आ�लशक रप स� सव�क�र कर तवद�� अ��स* नय�य��य द�र� उक अध�न�यम क� ��र� 109 क� तहत व��'गण क� ��व� ख�ररज ककय� गय� ह!, उस ह� तक पकरण क$ प � : स � व�ई एव� तवध��स�र क�यFव�ह' कर�� ह�त� तवद�� अ��स* नय�य��य क$ प � : प�तषत ककय� ज�� उधचत ह!।

¶25

आ��श

¶26

अत: अप��K व��'गण क� ओर स� पसत�त अप�� आ�लशक रप स� सव�क�र क� ज�त� ह! त� तवद�� अ��स* नय�य��य द�र� प�ररत आक�तपत न�णFय एव� आ��श द��क 27.05.2014 ��र� 109 र�जस*�� प�च�यत�र�ज अध�न�यम क� तहत व��'गण क� ��व� ख�ररज ककय� गय� ह!, इस ह� तक अप�सत ककय� ज�त� ह! एव� पकरण तवद�� अ��स* नय�य��य क$ प � : प�तषत कर आ��श द�य� ज�त� ह! कक इस पकर�ण क$ प � : इबत��ई �'व�र' क� ��बर पर ल�य� ज�व� एव�

¶27

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.50/2015 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Prabhulal & Ors.

¶28

Judgment dated 04/03/2015

¶29

4 of 5

¶30

द��क 24.5.14 क$ पनतव��' स� .1 क� प�F��पत अ�तगFत आ��श 7 न�यम 11 लस . प . स� . क� प.वF सट�ज पर � , उसक� आग� क� सट�ज स� �$�D पकD क� प � : स � व�ई क� ज�कर पकरण क� तवध��स�र न�सत�रण कर�। �$�D पकक�र अ��स नय�य��य क� समक द��क 02.12.2012 क$ उपससत हD त*� तब तक �$�D पकक�र म�म�� म� य*�ससनत क�यम रख�, ततपश�तG तवद�� अ��स नय�य��य तवध��स�र क�यFव�ह' कर�। न�णFय क� पनत क� स�* अ��स* नय�य��य क� पत�व�' �Nट�ई ज�व�।

¶31

Mr. Manish Patel, Addl. Govt. Counsel, appearing for the appellants, State (defendants) and Panchayat Samiti- Kapasan, submitted that requirement of giving prior notice to State under Section 109 of the Act of 1994 is mandatory and in view of noncompliance of the said provision, the suit was rightly dismissed by the learned trial court while allowing defendants' application under O. 7 R. 11 CPC. He further submitted that the learned first appellate court has erred in partly allowing the appeal of the plaintiffs/respondents while remanding the matter back to the trial court for trial afresh. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Baldev Singh Vs. Smt. Guddi Devi & Ors. reported in 2013 (2) RLW 1133 (Raj.) .

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, and upon perusal of the judgments and decree of the two courts below, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal of the

¶33

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.50/2015 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Prabhulal & Ors.

¶34

Judgment dated 04/03/2015

¶35

5 of 5

¶36

appellants/defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the present second appeal of the defendants deserves dismissal. The matter in question was relating to some contract for fishing in the concerned Panchayat Samiti, and the suit was filed by the plaintiffs without serving the notice u/s 109 of the Act of 1994. Though it is true that serving of notice was mandatory but the purpose of same is to bring to the notice of the concerned Panchayat Samiti about the purported cause of action before approaching the civil court. Since the matter has been now remanded back by the first appellate court to the learned trial court, the appellants/defendants shall be at liberty to raise this objection before the trial court and the trial court is expected to formulate a preliminary issue on the said objection raised by the appellants/defendants and then decide the same as a preliminary issue. However, there is no substantial question requiring consideration by this Court under Section 100 of C.P.C., 1908 at this stage.

¶37

With these observations, the second appeal is dismissed with aforesaid liberty to the defendants. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the courts below forthwith.

¶38

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶39

DJ/5

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Prabhu Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Prabhu Lal and Ors.

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

Lr'S of Ram Jeewan Vs Lr'S of Gopal Krishan and Ors.

Rajendra Singh and Anr. Vs Chandraveer Singh and Ors.

Lrs.of Bhanwar Lal Vs Balu Lal

Nand Kishore Vs Jeevanlal

Smt. Badam Bai Vs Mohammad Yunus and Ors.

Bhanwar Lal Vs Smt. Sushila Devi