Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
Ajmer Kaur
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Revisions No. 1990 of 1989,
Decided On : DECEMBER 5, 1989
NORTHERN INDIA CANAL AND DRAINAGE ACT, 1873 - SEC. 30(G), 68 - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - BARRED - SUIT CHALLENGING ORDER PASSED UNDER THE ACT - NOT MAINTAINABLE - ORDER RETURNING PLAINT - APPEALABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit challenging an order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction and an application under Section 80(2) CPC were also filed. The Trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction and granted permission to file the suit without serving notice under Section 80 CPC. However, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the order of the Trial Court returning the plaint was not appealable.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 30(g) read with Section 68 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, and hence the plaint should have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC instead of returning the same. The Court also held that the Trial Court committed an illegality in dismissing the application for temporary injunction and granting permission to file the suit without serving notice under Section 80 CPC, as it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The Court further held that the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that an order returning the plaint is not appealable.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit challenging the order passed under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873? 2. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for temporary injunction and granting permission to file the suit without serving notice under Section 80 CPC? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that an order returning the plaint is not appealable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 30(g) read with Section 68 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, which prohibits the Civil Court from entertaining or deciding any question relating to matters falling under Sections 30-A to 30 F. F.) of the Act. 2. The Trial Court committed an illegality in dismissing the application for temporary injunction and granting permission to file the suit without serving notice under Section 80 CPC, as it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Grant of exemption to file the suit without serving notice under Section 80 C.P. C. will not improve the situation and the plaintiff cannot stake any claim on the basis thereof as the mistaken belief could not confer jurisdiction upon Court. 3. An order returning the plaint is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(a) CPC.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition and ordered the plaint to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 1989 and 1990 of 1989. The facts for the purpose of this order are taken from Civil Revision No. 1990 of 1989.
2. The petitioners through the present revision petition have challenged the order dated 8-2-1988 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Muktsar who while holding that the said Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners and the orders of the Lower Appellate Court dated 9-6-1989 wherein it is held that no appeal lies against the orders of Trial Court returning the plaint.
3. The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners preferred a suit before the Trial Court challenging the order dated 23-4-1987 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozpur Canal Circle, Ferozpur Cantt. under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act 1873. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with sec. 151 CPC and application under Section 80(2) CPC were also filed. The Trial Court granted permission to the plaintiffs-petitioners to file the suit without serving advance notice under Section 80 CPC and also granted ad interim injunction. However, after filing of the written statement by the Defendants/Respondents 3 and 4 the pleas of jurisdiction, dismissal of writ petition by this Court on 17-8-1987 filed by plaintiff-petitioners against the order impugned before the Trial Court etc. etc. were taken.
4. After examining the rival contention of the parties the trial Court came to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 particularly Sec. 30(g) read with Sec. 68 of the said Act, jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. However, it also dismissed the application of the plaintiffs-petitioners for temporary injunction on merit vide order dated 8-2-1988. On appeal preferred by the plaintiffs-petitioners, the Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 9-6-1989 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners on the plea that the order of the Trial Court, whereby the plaint was ordered to be returned was not appealable and since the plaint was returned so the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was non-existent. Against both the orders of the Trial Court as well as of the Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff-petitioners are before this Court.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case file. I am of the considered view that viewing the case of the plaintiffs-petitioners from any angle, they are bound to fail. No doubt both the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court have taken view contrary to law, but that is not going to improve the case of the plaintiffs-petitioners.
6. The very fact that the plaintiffs-petitioners challenged the orders of the authorities passed under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, in Civil Suit is contrary to law inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Sec. 30(g) read with Sec. 68 of the Act (supra) which are reproduced as under :
"30(g) Bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to matters falling under Sections 30-A to 30 F. F.)"
"68(6) The Superintending Canal Officer, within whose jurisdiction the water course is situated may suo motu or on an application made in this behalf by an aggrieved person, revise an order passed in appeal by a Divisional Canal Officer under sub-section (5). Provided that no such application shall lie unless it is made within a period of thirty days from the date of such order. (7) No order passed under this section shall be liable to be called in question in any Civil Court. "
7. The perusal of the aforementioned provisions of la
AI
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
