Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Rameshwar Vyas, J.
Gram Panchayat Gangana – Appellant
Versus
Prema Ram & Ors. – Respondents
S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 75 of 2021
Decided On : 08-03-2022
Gram Panchayat Gangana - Civil Procedure - Order VII, Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. - Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj act, 1994
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant members and the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat filed an application to reject the suit on the ground of lack of notice under Section 109 of the act of 1994. The trial court rejected the application, but the High Court found the Gram Panchayat to be a necessary party and set aside the trial court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the Gram Panchayat was a necessary party in the suit proceedings and that the suit was not maintainable without giving notice under Section 109 of the act of 1994.
Issues: Whether the suit was maintainable without giving notice to the Gram Panchayat under Section 109 of the act of 1994.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the interest of any party may be adversely affected by passing of any order or decree in a suit proceedings, then that party is a necessary party even though no relief has been claimed against that party. The suit against the Gram Panchayat was found to be not maintainable without giving notice under Section 109 of the act of 1994.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the trial court's decision, and held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable.
Key Points: - The Gram Panchayat is deemed a necessary party if its interest may be adversely affected by an order or decree, even if no relief is claimed against it (!) . - A suit against the Gram Panchayat cannot be filed without giving 60 days’ prior notice under Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; the absence of such notice renders the suit not maintainable (!) . - The trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC by not considering that the Gram Panchayat asserted a right to land and is a necessary party (!) . - The High Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the notice requirement and that the Gram Panchayat cannot be omitted as a party when its interests may be affected (!) . - The revision petition was allowed; the impugned order was set aside, and the suit was held not maintainable (!) . - The decision emphasizes that a party’s interest being potentially adversely affected makes it a necessary party even without claimed relief against it (!) .
JUDGMENT
Rameshwar Vyas, J. - This civil revision petition has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner-defendant No. 5 - Gram Panchayat Gangana against the Order dated 28.07.2021 passed by the additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Case No. 02/2021 (Prema Ram & Ors. Vs. Bhinya Ram & Ors.), whereby the application under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 5 was rejected. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs - Prema Ram and others (respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein) filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, members of the Jat Community (proforma respondent Nos. 5 to 8 herein) and the defendant No. 5 - Gram Panchayat (petitioner herein) with the averments that suit property vested in the Gram Panchayat Gangana, Panchayat Samiti Luni, District Jodhpur. The plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were having joint interest in the suit property, which was purchased in the name of some of the members of the Community. No member of the community was having independent personal interest in the suit property, however, for last two months, it appeared that the defendants were adamant to interfere in the dispute property, for which they did not have any right. Hence, the suit for declaration and injunction was filed against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, who are members of the Jat Community. The Gram Panchayat Gangana was also impleaded defendant No. 5 in the suit on the ground that the patta of the land in question was issued by the Gram Panchayat. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 5 (petitioner herein) filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. with the prayer to reject the suit on the ground that before filing the suit, no notice under Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj act, 1994 (afterwards referred to as 'the act of 1994') was served by the plaintiffs upon the defendant - Gram Panchayat, thus, the suit was barred by law. In reply to the application, the plaintiffs submitted that since no relief was claimed against the Gram Panchayat, hence, it was not necessary to give any notice before filing the suit against the Gram Panchayat. after hearing the parties, the trial court rejected the said application vide Order dated 28.07.2021 on the ground that no relief was claimed against the Gram Panchayat, hence, it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to give notice under Section 109 of the act of 1994 to the Gram Panchayat before filing the suit. aggrieved with the above order of the trial court rejecting the application under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C., this revision petition has been filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
3. after perusal of the record, it reveals that though, no relief has been claimed by the plaintiffs against the Gram Panchayat, however, after going through the averments made in the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C., it cannot be said that the Gram Panchayat is not a necessary party in the suit proceedings. In the application, it has been stated that the Gram Panchayat decided to construct the Panchayat Bhawan on the land in question for which, sanction was also granted by the Panchayati Raj Department. It has been further averred in the application that after coming to know about said sanction, this collusive suit has been filed by the plaintiffs without giving any notice to the Gram Panchayat under Section 109 of the act of 1994.
4. It is well settled proposition of law that the suit against the Gram Panchayat cannot be filed without giving notice of 60 days under Section 109 of the act of 1994. The trial court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. without considering the fact that the Gram Panchayat has asserted its right on the land in question. The trial c
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party may be considered necessary in a suit proceeding if its interest may be adversely affected, even if no relief is claimed against that ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of the Gram Panchayat as a necessary party in a property dispute and the limited power of the appellate court to examine the legality....
The court upheld the grant of permission under Sec. 91 of CPC, emphasizing the need for reasoned and judicious exercise of the power to grant leave. The court also emphasized the requirement for the ....
Assessment list in respect of a vacant land - It is trite law that an order passed by a quasi judicial authority determining the rights of the parties should contain reasons, as reasons would reflect....
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by any law.
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.
Suits against a Panchayat must comply with statutory notice requirements under Section 249 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and applications for plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11 must be adjudi....
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
