The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaint could be rejected as a whole against a statutory authority if it is found to be barred under specific provisions of the relevant Acts, and no injunction could be granted against the statutory authority.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Counsel Mr Joaquim Godinho for the Applicant, learned Counsel Mr J.A. Lobo for Respondent No.2, Mr Manish Salkar, learned Government Advocate, for Respondent Nos.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and learned Counsel Mr D. Zaveri with Mr M. Mahamal for Respondent No.8.

2. Admit. Heard finally with consent.

3. With the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties, present revision is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. Applicant herein is the original Defendant No.6 in Civil Suit No. 22/2018 filed before the District Court at Panaji which was allotted to District Judge-2, Panaji sitting at Ponda.

5. The Applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as well as raised preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court. The said application was resisted by the Original Plaintiff/Respondent No.8. The learned Trial Court vide its impugned order dtd. 26/9/2019, rejected such application. Hence, the present revision.

6. The short question which cropped up in the present revision is whether plaint could be rejected qua Defendant No.6 under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC.

7. Mr Godinho appearing for the Applicant submitted that Applicant is a Board constituted under statutory provisions and is part of Government of Goa. He, therefore, submitted that the prayers for injunction against the statutory authorities would not lie. He pointed out the prayers in the suit which refer to the prayer for granting of permanent injunction against the Applicant/Defendant No.6 thereby restraining the Board from issuing permissions, licences, etc. to Defendant Nos.2 and 3. He then submitted that Sec. 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Sec. 58 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 specifically bars jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which an appellate authority constituted under the said Acts is empowered by or under the said Act to determine. It is his contention that application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) filed by the Applicant/Defendant No.6 is basically for rejection of plaint as a whole qua Applicant/Defendant No.6. Such power is available with the Civil Court as suit is specifically barred under the above provisions and further, no injunction could be granted against the statutory authorities thereby preventing them from performing their duties under the Act.

8. Mr Godinho placed reliance on the following decisions:-

a) Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706),

b) Chetana Shankar Manapure and Anr. vs. Bandu s/o. Tanaji Barapatre (2020 (3) ALL MR 254), and

c) Sheela Ram Vidhani and anr. vs. S.K. Trading Company and ors. (2021 (5) Bom.C.R. 409),

9. Mr Lobo appearing for Respondent No.2 would submit that the licences and other permissions were granted to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per the procedure and also as per the order passed by this Court in earlier petition. However, he clearly admitted that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not file any application for rejection of plaint.

10. Mr Manish Salkar appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 4 to 7 would submit that the impugned order needs interference as there is specific bar to entertain such suit against Respondent No.6 which is the Board constituted under the said Acts.

11. Mr D. Zaveri appearing for Respondent No.8/Plaintiff would submit that first of all the application filed by Applicant is not tenable as it is well settled that the plaint cannot be rejected piecemeal. He would submit that the application filed before the Trial Court is not maintainable as the Applicant is claiming that suit is barred against all the Defendants. He placed reliance on the following decisions:-

a) Capt. Lance Irwin Lobo and Another vs. Leila Almeida and Another (2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1504),

b) Sejal Glass Limited vs. Navilan Merchants Private Limited (2018) 11 SCC 780),

c) Madhav P