IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that failure to issue a statutory notice under Section 249 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, necessitates the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

JUDGMENT :

(Viju Abraham, J.) :

The above original petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order, whereby Ext.P5 application filed by the petitioner seeking to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) was rejected.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition are as follows:

The petitioner is a Grama Panchayat and the defendant in O.S. No. 39/2017 on the files of Sub Court, Neyyattinkara and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The said suit is one for realisation and recovery of an amount of Rs.25,65,728/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the defendant and his assets. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff without issuing a proper notice as contemplated under Section 249 of the Panchayat Raj Act,1994( for short 'the Act, 1994') amended the plaint and made substantial changes in the relief portion of the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that a notice was issued to the defendant on 19.07.2017, calling up the defendant to grant the relief sought in Ext.P1 plaint. The case of the petitioner is that subsequently, Ext.P1 plaint was amended and an entirely different relief is sought therein as evident from Ext.P3 amended plaint. It is further contended by the petitioner that going by Section 249 of the Act, 1994, no suit shall be filed until the expiration of one month after issuance of notice in writing stating the cause of action, name and place of abode of intending plaintiff and nature of relief which he claims and the plaint shall also contain an affirmation as to how the notice was delivered to the Panchayat. The suit notice contemplated as per sub-section 2 of Section 249 of the Act, 1994 should explicitly state the relief sought in the plaint and if the nature of relief sought in the plaint is not affirmed or demanded in the statutory notice, the same cannot be termed as a statutory notice. Failure of issuance of a notice apparently attracts the bar under Section 249(1) of the Act, 1994. The case of the petitioner is that the relief that is sought in Ext.P3 amended plaint was not demanded or sought in Ext.P4 notice and therefore, it is contended that there is no statutory notice as contemplated and mandated by Section 249 of the Act, 1994. Thereupon the petitioner filed Ext.P5 application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as I.A.No.8/2024 in O.S.No.39 of 2017 seeking to reject Ext.P1 plaint. The Subordinate Judge’s Court as per Ext.P7 order, disposed of Ext.P5 petition stating that the case is listed for trial and therefore, there is no need to raise a preliminary issue regarding the same and that admittedly the plaintiff had issued notice to the defendant prior to institution of the suit and whether the said notice comes under the purview of Section 249 of the Act 1994 could be decided after taking evidence and that the same could be considered by raising an additional issue regarding the same. The contention of the petitioner is that the trial court has not adjudicated the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and the same was neither allowed nor dismissed, but postponed the consideration of the said issue at the time of trial. It is the contention of the petitioner that if an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court is bound to entertain and adjudicate the said application without considering the stage at which the same was filed as the same could be considered at any stage of the suit prior to the judgment. Since a copy of the order in I.A. No.8/2024 was not issued, the petitioner was constrained to file OP(C) No.1364 of 2024 before this Court and this Court as per judgment dated 28.06.2024 directed the trial court to issue a certified copy of the order to the petitioner and deferred trial of the case till then. It is challenging Ext.P7 order that the present original petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that going by the mandate of Section 249 of the Act, 1994, no suit o