The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 250 of the Cantonment Act, 2006, and the applicability of its provisions based on the presence of any notice or order under the Act against the respondent/plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 13.04.2021 passed in CS No. 759/2018 titled Manish Kumar vs. Ram Kishan & Anr., whereby the application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC, 1908 filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking deletion of issues no.1 and 2 was allowed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant nos.1 and 2 submits that the issue regarding whether the suit property falls within the jurisdiction of Delhi Cantonment Board was taken right uptill the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 8866/2020 whereby after hearing the parties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the petitioner had accepted the jurisdiction of Delhi Cantonment Board over the land in question and it was on that basis, that the learned Trial Court had considered that issue no.1 was not required to be adjudicated.

3. Learned counsel submits that so far as issue no. 2, as to whether the provisions of Section 250 of Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter as "the Act") would bar the suit as filed by the respondent/plaintiff is concerned, the learned Trial Court committed an error in not considering the correct interpretation of Section 250 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the plain reading of Section 250 of the Act leaves no room for any ambiguity, in that, the bar is absolute and no Civil Court can entertain any suit other than the proceedings in respect whereof the appellate authority under the Cantonment Act has the exclusive jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court overlooked the plain interpretation of Section 250 of the Act and concluded that it is only if a person who is affected by any order or notice contained in Section 250 of the Act, that the suit or application by such person would be barred. Learned counsel submits that the said interpretation is erroneous and is not correct in view of the language contained in Section 250 of the Act.

6. Learned counsel also submits that the issue regarding constructions made by the petitioner on the said suit property is pending adjudication before this Court in writ jurisdiction whereby the petitioner had challenged the three deficiencies raised by the Cantonment Board in respect of the subject property. On that basis, learned counsel submits that having regard to the fact that the matter is pending before this Court, the learned Trial Court could not have concluded that no action under Section 250 of the Act has been appealed against by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel submits that, even if an appeal under Section 340 of the Act in strict sense is not preferred, the challenge in the writ petition should be deemed as if there is a proceeding against the notice issued by the Cantonment Board, and constructed as such, the bar under Section 250 would be available to the petitioner/defendant to resist the suit of the respondent/plaintiff.

8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the words employed in Section 250 of the Act are clear and brook no other interpretation. Learned counsel submits that once the petitioner has accepted that the subject suit property is covered by the jurisdiction of Delhi Cantonment Board, coupled with the fact that there is no notice or order issued against the respondent/plaintiff, there is no bar which can be raised against the suit filed by the respondent on the basis of Section 250 of the Act.

9. Learned counsel submits that only in case any order or notice was issued against the respondent/plaintiff, then alone it could be possible that the bar under Section 250 of the Act may have been raised as an issue by the petitioner/defendant.

10. Learned counsel submits that since no notice or any order has been issued against the respondent/petitioner, the question of his suit being barred under provisions of Section 250 of the Act does not arise. On that basis, learned counsel su