The main legal point established is that a subsequent application under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906, is not maintainable if filed after the rejection of an earlier application for non-compliance with Act requirements.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. In this writ petition, the question that arises for consideration is, as to whether a fresh suit or proceeding would lie before the Mamlatdar under the provisions of the Mamlatdars” Courts Act, 1906 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1906”) when an earlier suit/proceedings on the same cause of action has been rejected for non-compliance of specific requirements of the Act of 1906.

4. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the present petition, filed an application on 19/05/2018 before the Tahsildar, exercising the powers of Mamlatdar under the provisions of the Act of 1906. In this application, it was claimed that the petitioner had blocked a way that was being used by the said respondents through the field of the petitioner to access their fields. This application was signed not only by the said respondents, but some other agriculturists also.

5. The respondent No.3-Tahsildar treated this application as a suit/proceeding under section 5 of the Act of 1906 and called upon the petitioner to respond to the said application/ suit. The petitioner filed his reply, inter alia, stating that the application/suit initiated by the said respondents and others did not divulge any cause of action in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1906 and that the proceedings deserved to be dismissed. On 19/06/2018 a spot inspection was undertaken by respondent No.3-Tahsildar and thereafter the matter was kept for further proceedings.

6. On 02/07/2018, respondent No.3-Tahsildar passed an order directing that the application submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 5 and others, was required to be placed on record in terms of the format expected under section 5 of the Act of 1906 and a direction was given that the parties may lead their evidence in the matter. Thereafter, on 18/07/2018 the application/suit was dismissed by respondent No.3-Tahsildar for the reason that respondent Nos.4 and 5 failed to comply with the direction given for placing on record the application/suit in the expected format.

7. Thereafter, on 24/07/2018 respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed a fresh application/suit under section 5 of the Act of 1906, again claiming that the petitioner had obstructed the way that they were allegedly using to access their fields. In this application a specific date i.e. 18/05/2018 was mentioned as the day on which such an obstruction had been created by the petitioner. In para-4 of the said application, respondent Nos.4 and 5 specifically mentioned that they had indeed filed an earlier proceeding before respondent No.3-Tahsildar, but the same was rejected on 18/07/2018, on the ground that direction to file proper application under format of section 5 of the Act of 1906, was not complied with.

8. On 19/09/2018, the petitioner filed an objection to the said fresh application filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5. In this objection/reply, the petitioner specifically stated that once the earlier application had been rejected on 18/07/2018, respondent Nos.4 and 5 could not have filed a fresh application under the provisions of the Act of 1906 for the same cause of action before respondent No.3-Tahsildar. Apart from this, the petitioner also responded on the merits of the matter.

9. Thereafter, respondent No.3 proceeded with the matter and on 17/10/2018 passed an order allowing the application of respondent Nos.4 and 5, thereby directing the petitioner to remove the obstruction and to make available the way claimed by the said respondents for access to their fields. There was no reference to the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the second application, specifically raised on behalf of the petitioner.

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of respondent No.3-Tahsildar, on 01/11/2018, the petitioner filed revision application before respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Offic