Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar - Appellant
Versus
Sandip Madhav Khase - Respondent
Civil Revision Application No. 186 of 2024
Decided On : 28-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pratik P. Kothari
For the Respondent: M.G. Kolse Patil
Mandatory notice periods under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Act and Village Panchayats Act must be complied with prior to filing a suit, and non-compliance renders the suit non-maintainable.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115; Sections 80, 280 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961; Section 180 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Rejecting plaint application under Order VII Rule 11 - Notice periods prescribed in various acts are mandatory and non-compliance renders a suit inoperative - Court ruled that the impugned order did not correctly differentiate between notice provisions of CPC and the other Acts. (Paras 9-12)
(B) Waiver of Notice Period - Section 80 of CPC allows for waiver but under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Act and the Village Panchayats Act, no such waiver is permitted; thus, non-compliance leads to ineligibility of the suit. (Paras 9, 12, 21)
(C) Jurisdiction of Trial Court - The Trial Court's error in interpreting the mandatory nature of the notice periods constitutes jurisdictional overreach, leading to an improper ruling on the application to reject the plaint. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The Applicants, original Defendants, contested an eviction notice issued to Respondent No.1, arguing non-compliance with statutory notice periods; the Court found this argument valid and ruled to reject the plaint.
Findings of Court:
The mandatory nature of notice under applicable acts was emphasized, reflecting the requirement for compliance for maintaining a civil suit.
Issues: Main issues included the validity of the eviction notice due to absence of required notices, and the jurisdiction of the Trial Court in waiving statutory notice periods.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that notice periods under the relevant acts are non-negotiable; hence, failure to issue required notices invalidates the suit and the impugned order failed to comprehend that distinction.
Result: The plaint in RCS No.652/2024 is rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under cpc and notice requirements (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. factual background of eviction and suit filed (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. analysis of notice period compliance and legal distinctions (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. judicial precedents on mandatory notice comparisons (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. final ruling on rejection of plaint (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
1. Heard both sides finally.
2. Revision Applicants who are original Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , taking exception to order dated 01.10.2024 below Exhibit-25 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar in RCS No.652/2024. Their application to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been turned down. Respondent No.1 is the Plaintiff in RCS No.652/2024 filed for the relief of declaration and injunction.
3. Respondent No.1 was allotted shop no.3 by Applicant No.1/Zilla Parishad on deposit of Rs.5000/- with effect from 27.12.1999. He accordingly runs a grocery business. It is pleaded that he is punctual in paying rent and taxes. The shop in question is in good condition. Due to political rivalry, he has been targeted and the Respondents decided to evict him from the shop. Without giving him any opportunity, order was passed on 01.03.2024. In pursuance of that he was issued eviction notice of 15.07.2024, directing him to vacate the shop within fifteen days. He has thus challenged report, order dated 01.03.2024 and the notice dated 15.07.2024 by filing above referred suit on 30.07.2024.
4. Applicants submitted application Exhibit-25 under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground that no notice under Section 280 of the MAHARASHTRA ZILLA PARISHADS AND PANCHAYAT SAMITIS ACT , 1961 (Zilla Parishads Act) was issued to the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2. No notice under Section 80 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (hereinafter referred as CPC) was issued by the Respondent No.1. It is further contended that it was mandatory to issue notice under Section 180 of MAHARASHTRA VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ACT , 1959, as Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are the authorities under the concerned Act. Respondent No.1 contested the application by filing his Say. By impugned order, application was rejected holding that issue regarding waiver of notice period would be dealt with on merits during the course of proceeding and there is sufficient compliance of notices as contemplated under various Act.
5. Applicants have placed on record plaint, notice dated 15.07.2024 by which Respondent No.1 is called upon to vacate the premises and a notice dated 24.07.2024 which was issued by Respondents before filing of the suit.
6. Learned Counsel for the Applicants Mr. Kothari submits that there is no compliance of Section 80 of the CPC, Section 280 of the Zilla Parishads Act and Section 180 of the MAHARASHTRA VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ACT and the suit is not entertainable. He would advert my attention to the dates of issuing notice and filing of the suit to demonstrate non-compliance of the mandatory provisions. He would submit that plaint is silent regarding any waiver of notice period or the immense urgency for which Plaintiff could not have waited for the notice period. He would submit that observations of learned Judge in paragraph no.8 are patently illegal. He would submit that no leave was secured under Section 80 (2) of CPC. Hence the suit is not maintainable. It is further submitted that filing of separate application at Exhibit-48 soliciting waiver of notice period is inconsequential and afterthought.
7. Mr. Kolse Patil learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 supports impugned order. He would submit that Applicants have resorted to eviction arbitrarily and highhandedly without extending opportunity of hearing. He would submit that notice dated 24.07.2024 is the sufficient compliance of Section 80 and for the purpose of waiver, application Exhibit-48 has been filed which is under
