2014 Supreme(UK) 465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Singh, J.
Gurmukh Singh - Appellant
Versus
Madan Mohan and others - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 48 of 2014
Decided On : 16-5-2014
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents.
Compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is mandatory in a suit filed under Section 91 of the C.P.C.
Headnote:
Public Pathway - Civil Procedure Code - Section 91, Order 1 Rule 8 - Section 91, Order 1 Rule 8
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit seeking injunction against defendants from encroaching upon a public pathway. Trial court dismissed the suit for failure to prove the cause of action. Appellate court also dismissed the appeal. The substantial question of law was whether compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C. is mandatory in a suit filed under Section 91 of the C.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was decided without compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C., thus vitiating the entire trial. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgments were set aside. The suit was remanded to the trial court for a de novo trial after complying with Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C.
Issues: Failure to prove cause of action, Compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. in a suit under Section 91 of the C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: Compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is mandatory in a suit filed under Section 91 of the C.P.C. Failure to comply vitiates the trial.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the impugned judgment and decree were set aside. The suit was remanded to the trial court for a de novo trial after following the procedure of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C.
Alok Singh, J.
Present second appeal is preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012, passed by the 1st Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) as well as judgment and decree dated 09.04.2014, passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar whereby O.S. No. 10 of 2013, Gurdeep Singh and others Vs Madan Mohan and others was dismissed and appeal arising therefrom was also dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court.
2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiff filed O.S. No. 10 of 2003 with the allegation that public pathway is going through the Khasra No. 67 of Village Hempur Ismile & khasra Nos. 50 and 51 of village Hempur Ismile, Tehsil Kashipur whereupon defendants have absolutely no right to make any encroachment. Defendants are intending and extending threats to encroach upon the public pathway by making constructions. If defendants are successful in making encroachment over the public pathway, it wound amount to nuisance, therefore, defendants be restrained in making encroachment by any means over the public pathway.
3. Defendants appeared before the learned Trial Court and filed their written statement and stated that they have absolutely no right and concern over the public pathway going through khasra No. 67 as well as 50 and 51 nor are intending to raise any constructions thereon.
4. Perusal of the ordersheet of the trial court would reveal that learned Trial Court, vide order dated 10.03.2003, was pleased to grant permission to the plaintiffs to file suit under Section 91 of the C.P.C. in the representative capacity.
5. When present appeal was taken up for preliminary hearing on 08.05.2014, following order was passed:-
“Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents.
Present second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Ist Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kashipur as well as judgment and decree dated 9.4.2014 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby O.S. No. 10 of 2003, on the file of learned Trial Court, was dismissed and appeal arising therefrom was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court.
Plaintiffs/appellants filed O.S. No. 10 of 2003, Gurdeep Singh and others v. Madan Mohan and others, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, herein, in making any encroachment by any means over the public pathway situated in Khasra No. 67 of Village Hempur Ismail and adjacent Khasra Nos. 50 & 51 of Village Kundeshwara, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. It is stated in the plaint that the land of Khasra No. 67 of Village Hempur Ismail and adjacent land of Khasra No. 50 & 51 of Village Kundeshwara is a part of public pathway, whereupon defendants have absolutely no right either to encroach upon by way of raising construction or to create any obstruction in the public pathway.
Defendants/respondents, herein, filed their written statement before the learned Trial Court stating therein that defendants have absolutely no concern, right or possession over the disputed public pathway situated in Khasra No. 67 of Village Hempur Ismail and adjacent Khasra Nos. 50 & 51 of Village Kundeshwara.
Learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit having observed that plaintiffs could not prove that defendants ever intended to encroach upon the disputed public pathway situated in Khasra No. 67 of Village Hempur Ismail and adjacent Khasra Nos. 50 & 51 of Village Kundeshwara, and appeal arising therefrom was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court.
Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in view of the admission made by the defendants/respondents in the written statement that they have absolutely no concern, right or possession over the land of public pathway situated in Khasra No. 67 of Village Hempur Ismail and adjacent Khasra Nos. 50 & 51 of Village Kundeshwara, suit ought to have been decr