Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ramavtar Goyal S/o Buddhulal Goyal - Respondent
SA No. 33 of 2021
Decided On : 02-02-2024
CPC - Appeal - Sections 100, 80, Order 41 Rule 27 - The judgment discusses the legality and propriety of the lower appellate Court's decision to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The substantial questions of law revolve around the suit's limitation, maintainability, and admission of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The Court found the suit to be within limitation, maintainable, and allowed the admission of additional evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking declaration that an order dismissing him from service was null and void. The trial Court held the dismissal invalid but found the suit time-barred and non-maintainable due to non-compliance with Section 80 of CPC. The first appellate Court set aside the trial Court's decision, and the defendants appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found the suit to be within limitation, maintainable, and allowed the admission of additional evidence. The Court held that the plaintiff's compliance with Section 80 of CPC was sufficient and that the first appellate Court's decision was legal and justified.
Issues: The issues revolved around the suit's limitation, maintainability, and admission of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 80 of CPC, which requires notice to the Government before filing a suit. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the notice is to give the Government an opportunity to reconsider the claim and settle it without litigation. The Court also considered the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, which allows the admission of additional evidence if the appellate Court requires it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the first appellate Court's decision that the suit was within limitation, maintainable, and allowed the admission of additional evidence.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.91-A/2019, whereby the lower appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/ plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.07.1987 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 183A/1986 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed in defendant's favour.
2. The parties to this appeal shall be referred to hereinafter as per their description in the civil suit.
3. This appeal has been admitted by this Court on 05.03.2021 on the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in holding that the suit is within limitation by recording a finding perverse to be record?
(ii) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in holding that the suit is maintainable without service of notice under Section 80 of the CPC by recording a finding perverse to the record?
(iii) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in admitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC by recording a finding perverse to the record?
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent filed a civil suit for declaration that order dated 02.09.1975 issued by defendant No. 3 be declared as null and void and he be reinstated with all service benefits including promotion, seniority contending that he was working as Teacher under the Government of Madhya Pradesh since 18.09.1961. Defendant No. 3 District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon dismissed him from the service on 05.06.1975. Later on this order was revoked and he was taken back in the service and again he was dismissed from service on 02.09.1975. This order was confirmed by the appellant No. 2 Divisional Education Officer, Durg vide order dated 16.07.1977. The plaintiff further stated that he made representation to the higher authorities against his dismissal from service, but no action has been taken. Thereafter on 03.07.1980 the plaintiff sent notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, but the appellants did not take any action on the notice which has necessitated him to file a civil suit on 15.07.1980. The plaintiff has also sought leave to file suit as per Section 80(2) of the CPC contending that the plaintiff has submitted representation to the defendant demanding justice but no justice has been done with him, therefore, he has sent notice on 03.07.1980. It has also been contended that if the suit is filed after 60 days then it may be time barred, as such he is claiming leave to file suit looking to the exigency and seriousness of the matter.
5. The learned Trial Court granted the leave by registering the suit on 16.07.1980 and also issued notice to the defendant. The plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for grant of interim injunction of stay of order of dismissal from service. The defendant has filed reply to the said application and the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 07.01.1981 has rejected the same.
6. Defendants resisted the suit filed by the plaintiff stating that after reinstatement of the plaintiff they received complaints from the parents of the students that the plaintiff has misbehaved and beaten the students. It has been further contended that the District Education Officer on the basis of complaint dated 19.06.1975 has inspected the school and it was found that plaintiff was absent on 22.06.1975, as such, the impugned order dated 02.09.1975 is legal and justified. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has remedy available under the Service Law as such also the suit is not maintainable. The defendants have also contended that the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Section
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with Section 80 of CPC and the admission of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC are subject to the Court's discretion....
The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of procedural law, especially regarding notice requirements under S.80 CPC, to ensure just claims are not dismissed on technical grounds.
The main legal point established is that the delay in filing an appeal must be supported by sufficient cause, and the presence of a substantial question of law is essential for entertaining a second ....
The time for suit initiation under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act begins at the record publication date, not knowledge. Claims are dismissed for failure to comply with limitation and notice requirements....
The Rajya Sabha Secretariat is not a government body under the Civil Procedure Code, thus no notice under Section 80 was necessary for the appellant's suit.
The Court clarified the conditions for maintaining a suit against the Government without notice under Section 80 CPC and interpreted the provisions of the section.
A suit for correction of record pursuant to established title can proceed beyond limitation, with notice requirements under Section 80 CPC deemed unnecessary if no specific relief against public offi....
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
