Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
M. Hariharasudhan – Appellant
Versus
R. Karmegam and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8069 of 2019, Arising out of SLP (C) No.11852 of 2019
Decided On : 17-10-2019
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Suit – Maintainability – Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court – Where statute gives a finality to orders of special Tribunals civil courts’ jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what civil courts would normally do in a suit – Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where provisions of particular Act have not been complied with or statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (Para 6)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 – Sections 10, 11 and 14 – Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Rules, 1994 – Rule 4 – Suit for damages – Maintainability – Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court – Act does not stand in place of and preclude claim for damages under common law as may fall for determination before a civil court in a civil suit – There is no express bar under the Act on jurisdiction of civil court to entertain suit for damages – Even if Rules broadly provide a procedure to claim compensation for damage or loss to public as well as private property, scheme of Act does not envisage ouster of jurisdiction of civil court – Section 14 clearly recognises concurrent jurisdiction of civil court to entertain a suit for damages – Section 14 of Act, being in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of other laws in force, permits an aggrieved person to approach civil court for relief if he so desires, instead of availing of remedy envisaged under Section 10 of Act – Claim for compensation under the Act is only in nature of an additional remedy which may be pursued in place of filing a civil suit for same relief – Since claim for compensation under Section 10 may only be determined by way of summary proceedings, it does not stand as a complete substitute to remedies that may be pursued in a civil court and determined through a full-fledged trial, even though certain powers of civil court are conferred upon prescribed authority determining claim for compensation under the Act – Judgment of High Court set aside and matter remitted to High Court for deciding first appeal on merits. (Paras 6, 10, 13, 14.3, 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Short question in this appeal is whether suit for damages filed by Appellant is maintainable in light of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 which depends on whether Act excludes jurisdiction of civil court. instant appeal arises from final judgment and order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras in A.S. (M.D.) No. 143 of 2018 allowing appeal filed by the unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No. 186 of 2016 (Respondents herein), wherein suit for damages filed by Appellant herein had been decreed by First Additional District Judge, Madurai.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court, upon holding that suit is maintainable, proceeded to decree the suit on merits. Appeal before the High Court, filed under Section 96 of CPC, was decided only on the preliminary point pertaining to maintainability of the suit. In view of our finding that suit is maintainable, matter has to be remitted to High Court for hearing first appeal on merits.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras in A.S. (M.D.) No. 143 of 2018 allowing the appeal filed by the unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No. 186 of 2016 (the Respondents herein), wherein the suit for damages filed by the Appellant herein had been decreed by the First Additional District Judge, Madurai, vide order dated 03.04.2018.
3. The short question in this appeal is whether the suit for damages filed by the Appellant is maintainable in light of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (in short “the Act”), which depends on whether the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court. In this respect, the brief facts of the case as alleged by the Appellant are as follows:
3.1 The Appellant runs a hotel at Madurai. He had purchased a plot of land adjacent to a plot owned by his father, where he started construction in 2014. The Appellant’s father filed O.S. No. 783 of 2014 against Respondent No. 1 for the relief of injunction, since Respondent No. 1 had started putting up a construction in front of the Appellant’s property obstructing free access to the property of the Appellant’s father. Though an order for maintaining the status quo was passed in the said suit, Respondent No. 1 completed his construction regardless. Later, aggrieved by the filing of the suit, Respondent No. 1, along with some henchmen, damaged certain construction materials on the Appellant’s property, causing damage to the tune of Rs. 2.27 lacs. The Appellant resultantly lodged the first information before the police and a crime came to be registered against Respondent No. 1, who later further damaged the show-case glass at the Appellant’s hotel by pelting stones at it and damaged its automatic glass door by driving a car into the hotel. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 trespassed into the hotel and took away cash of more than Rs. 1 lac. The Appellant spent Rs. 73,000/- on medical expenses for his injured employees, and subsequently filed O.S. No. 186 of 2016.
3.2 The Trial Court decreed the suit, i.e. O.S. No. 186 of 2016, holding that the Appellant was entitled to damages of Rs. 18,28,941/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, with proportionate costs. The maintainability of the suit was not an issue before the Trial Court.
3.3 The High Court, in appeal, framed points for consideration with respect to the maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the accrual of the cause of action. Though it was held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and was not prematurely filed, the decree was set aside solely based on the finding that the suit was not maintainable. The High Court found that there was no express bar on civil jurisdiction in the Act. However, it held that since the Act specified a particular method for claiming compensation for damage to property in Sections 10 and 11 of the Act, as well as Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Rules, 1994 (in short “the Rules”), all other methods for claiming compensation were excluded by implication, and thus the jurisdiction of the civil court was impliedly barred. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. Giri, appearing for the Appellant, argued that though the High Court had correctly held that there was no express bar on the jurisdiction of the civil court, it erred in holding that the Act impliedly ousted the jurisdiction of the civil court—in fact, the provisions thereof indicate that such jurisdiction exists concurrently with the remedies provided under the Act.
4.1 Learned Senior Counsel first referred to Section 7(4) of the Act, which provides that compensation ordered by the Court to be paid under Section 7 shall be accounted for at the time of awarding compensation
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
