Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 188
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Songkhupchung Serto, J.
Hanif Ali Laskar - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Forest Officer, Hailakandi & Ors. - Respondent
CRP 349/2016
Decided On : 27-02-2020
Ms.M Khanikar, for the Appellant; GA, Assam, for the Respondent
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sections 115, 47 – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995 – Section-49(4) –Criminal Procedure Code – Section 94 –Issue on timber, Detention – the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the trial before the civil court no pleading was made by the respondents as to the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the trial court – In this case, the petitioner was not convicted, therefore, the question of confiscation of his timbers does not arise – The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the vehicle hired by the petitioner for carrying his timber was detained for a long time and for that he had to pay the hiring charge for every passing day – It is also submitted by the learned counsel that when the question of jurisdiction of civil court is raised the courts would normally lean in favor of the construction which would uphold retention of jurisdiction of the civil court –Held, it can be concluded that the respondents had proceeded under the relevant provisions of law –Therefore, if the petitioner was not satisfied he should have taken his options under the law as aforementioned and not directly go to the civil court for claiming damages – It is only after succeeding in the proceedings as provided under the law prescribed that he may approach the civil court for damage and not before – Furthermore from the above undisputed facts, it appears that the petitioner approached the Civil Court while the proceeding under the Forest Regulation was going on –The learned Civil Court at that point of time could not have assume jurisdiction as a proceeding under the Forest Regulation was going on and, as it was still too early to take up the issue of damage at that point of time –From the judgments referred by both the learned counsels, it is clear that a judgment passed without jurisdiction cannot be executed –Civil Revision Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. This is a civil revision petition filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India , directed against the order dated 08.06.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Misc Case No. 38/2013 which is connected with Title Execution Case No. 31/2013 arising out of Title Suit No. 26/2010 of the Court of Civil Judge, Hailakandi.
2. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned Standing counsel who appears for all the respondents.
3. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of this civil revision petition briefly stated are as follows;
On 22.07.2010, while the petitioner was transporting 152 pieces of teak wood on a hired truck bearing Registration No. AS-24/0764 to Silchar from his village Mauja Shyampur under Katlicherra Revenue Circle, the respondent No.3 detained the truck and seized the timber. Thereafter, on 15.09.2010, the petitioner served a notice to the respondents but since no positive action was taken for releasing the truck and his timber he filed a Title Suit No. 26/2010 before the Court of Civil Judge, Hailakandi on 23.11.2010 wherein he prayed for a decree directing the respondents to pay him damage for pecuniary and non pecuniary loss suffered by him due to the detention of the hired truck and his seized timbers. The suit was contested by the respondents. On 18.03.2013, the suit was disposed with a decree passed in his favour in which it was declared that he was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 22,27,000/- from the defendants for the loss suffered by him due to the seizure and detention of the hired truck and his timber. It was also decreed that the defendants/respondents should pay the said amount to the plaintiff within 2(two) months from the date of passing of the judgment and decree. Since the judgment and decree were not honoured by the respondents, the petitioner filed Title Execution Case No. 31/2013. While, the execution case was pending, the respondents filed a Misc Application No. 30(A)/2013 praying for dismissal of the execution proceeding and at the same time praying for stay of the execution proceeding till the disposal of the misc application. The main contention of the petitioner in the misc application (respondents herein) was that under section-49(4) of Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995 , the District Forest Officer is the authority to deal with any issue in respect of the seized forest produce and if any of the parties is not satisfied with the decision of the District Forest Officer they can approach the District Judge under section 49(C) of the same Act. As such, the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge were passed without jurisdiction and it cannot be executed. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge passed the impugned order wherein he came to the conclusion that the learned Civil Judge who tried the Title Suit had no jurisdiction to try the same, therefore, the judgment and decree passed in the suit are not enforceable. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner is before this Court. The relevant portions of the impugned order are reproduced here below;
' 3. After hearing both sides at length, it transpires that the subject matter is the Forest Produce and squarely falls within the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. There is no pale of controversy that on 22/07/2010 he loaded 152 pieces of teak logs in vehicle No. AS/0764 for selling at Silchar though they had TP of only 50 pieces of log issued by the authority. On the way to Silchar, Range Officer, Matijuri and his staff detained the vehicle with logs along with TP dated 22/07/2010. In respect of detained forest produce, an offence report was submitted vide offence report No. M/12 dated 11/04/2010 which was accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hailankandi and summoned the plaintiff to appear before him on 08/09/2010 for disposal of the said matter. The decree holder app
