The Hyderabad Suits Against Government Act, 1320 F. , was repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1951, and was not a special or local law in force on the date of the extension of the Code of Civil Procedure to Hyderabad.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter comes before us on a reference made by the First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under S. 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THE point which arises for decision in this reference is whether the Hyderabad Suits Against Government Act (V of 1320 Fasli) Hereinafter referred to as the Hyderabad Act is void by reason of its repugnancy to the Code of Civil Procedure which was extended to the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in April 1951.

( 3 ) FOR a better appreciation of the point in controversy, we may, at the outset, briefly mention the admitted facts. On 23/07/1953, the plaintiff gave notice to the former Government of Hyderabad, under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and on 23/11/1953 instituted the suit against them for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 by way of damages for an alleged breach of the contract entered into by him with the Government. The Government filed their written statement raising various contentions regarding the tenability of the claim made by the plaintiff. The trial of the suit was taken up sometime in the year 1955. Eventually, on October 1958, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 (O. S. ). Against the said decree, the Government of Andhra Pradesh preferred an appeal to the High Court. The appeal was heard Manohar Pershad and Narasimham JJ. During the hearing of the appeal, the learned Government Pleader filed two petitions : (1) for permission to file an additional grounds, and ( 2) for permission to raise additional written statement. The additional written statement raised and objection that the suit was not maintainable by reason of the fact that necessary permission under the mandatory provisions of the Hyderabad Act had not been obtained and as such the suit was liable to be dismissed in limine. On 8/11/1962, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for fresh disposal. It may be mentioned that the learned Judges gave permission to the Government to raise the additional pleas, reserving however, the right of the plaintiff to file a rejoinder.

( 4 ) PURSUANT to the order of remand, the suit was again taken on file by the First Additional Chief Judge. Before him, the Government files their additional written statement on 19/06/1963.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff filed a rejoinder wherein he submitted that the Hyderabad Act did not apply to the suit. He alleged that the breach of contract had taken place after the Constitution came into force, and that on the date when the suit was filed, the Indian Code of Civil Procedure was made applicable to the territories forming part of the State of Hyderabad. He further pleaded that there was an obvious repugnancy, the Hyderabad Act became void. It was also contended that S. 4 C. P. C. , and the Hyderabad Act, and that by reason of the repugnancy, the Hyderabad Act became void. It was also contended that S. 4 C. P. C. , did not apply and that the forums specified in the Hyderabad Act were not in existence and were not available on the date of the suit. There was a further plea taken by him that there was a waiver of the objection and that, therefore, it could not be raised at this belated stage.

( 6 ) IN the light of fresh pleadings, certain additional issues were framed by the trial Court. Those material for the purposes of the present reference are the following; -"3. Is the plaintiffs suit not maintainable as no leave to sue was obtained under the suits Against the Government Act (v of 1320 Fasli)? 4. Is not the Suits Against the Government Act V of 1320 Fasli, void? 5. Is the suit against the Government maintainable under Act V of 1320 Fasli when the forums provided for in the said Act were not in existence and not available at the date of the suit?"the learned trial Judge, before whom the matter was argued at considerable length, came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Hyderabad Act must be declared void as being repugnant to S. 80 C. P. C. , but since there w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document