Back
2006(1) JLJ 42
S.S. Jha and P.K. ,Jaiswal, J.J.
Municipality, Raghogarh v. Gas Authority of India Ltd. and others
First Appeals No. 175 of 1995 and 1 of 1996 : against the judgement
and decree of District Judge, Guna passed in Civil Suit No. 37-A of
1995; Decided 01/ 12.5.2005
Counsel for the appellant challenged the decree on three grounds: (i) that the suit has been filed before expiry of period of notice under section 80, CPC, and no suit is maintainable against the appellant-Municipal Council without notice under section 319 of the Municipalities Act: (ii) that since the plaintiff is avoiding recovery worth Rs. 2.53 lacs. therefore, without payment of ad valorem court-fee, suit ought to have been dismissed or the trial Court should have rejected the plaint for insufficient payment of court-fee. (Para 3
Held: Suits against Municipal Council and the suit without serving statutory notice under section 319 of the Municipalities Act is not maintainable. The benefit of section 80(2) CPC cannot be extended to suits agaisnt Municipal Council and suit without serving statutory notice under the Municipalities Act is not maintainable. [Para 19
(2) Civil P.C.,1908 -- Ss. 79 and 80 -- no pleading regarding notice -- no receipt of notice -- in absence of notice, question of exemption does not arise -- there can also not be any waiver of notice in absence of averment regarding service and nature of notice. 2003( 1) MP JR 541 relied on. [Paras 16 to 18
(3) Civil P.C.1908 -- S. 10 -- civil suit challenging a notificationn -- writ petition for the same purpose already pending -- Court is required to examine whether civil suit should be stayed [Para 20
(4) Civil P.C.,1908 -- S. 80(2) - plaintiff first filing writ petition--later on filing civil suit for same cause of action -- cannot be said that there was any urgency - permission under S. 80(2) cannot be granted. [Para
(5) Waiver -- statutory right created in favour of a party -- it cannot be waived. [Para 8
(6) Civil P.C.. 1908 -- S. 80 (2) -- plaintiff is required to plead and prove need for immediate and urgent relief-- recovery of paid amount which is liable to be refunded - matter is not urgent or immediate. [Para 9
(7) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S.7 (iv) -- Specific Relief: 1963 -- S.38 -plaintiff praying for injunction to avoid payment of money -- ad valorem court-fees has 10 be paid on the amount. 2000(1) JLJ 81 (FB) relied on. [Para 10
(8) Documents -- admitted -- are required to be exhibited while deciding the suit. (Para 11
(9) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 80 -- notice -- requirements -- must mention description and residence of plaintiff, cause of action and relief claimed, 1972 JLJ SN 95 relied on. [Paras 12 & 13
¼1½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 319& &flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 80¼2½& &uxj ikfydk ifj"kn ds fo#) okn&vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 319 ds v/khu lwpuk dh rkehy ds fcuk pyus ;ksX; ugha& &lafgrk dh /kkjk 80¼2½ ds v/khu Qk;nk ,sls okn esa ugha fn;k tk ldrkA
vihykFkhZ ds dkmUlsy us rhu vk/kkjksa ij fMØh ij vk{ksi fd;k gS% ¼1½ ;g fd okn flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 80 ds v/khu lwpuk dh vof/k ds volku ls iwoZ Qkby fd;k x;k gS rFkk vihykFkhZ uxjikfydk ifj"kn ds fo#) okn uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 319 ds v/khu lwpuk ds fcuk pykus ;ksX; ugha gS( ¼2½ ;g fd oknh #- 2-53 yk[k dh olwyh ls cpuk pkgrk gS blfy, ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl ds lank; ds fcuk okn [kkfjt fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk vFkok fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk U;k;ky; Qhl ds vi;kZIr lank; ds fy, çfr{ksfir fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA ¼iSjk 3½
vfHkfu/kkZjr % e-ç- uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 319 ds v/khu dkuwuh lwpuk dh rkehy fd, fcuk uxjikfydk ifj"kn ds fo#) okn pykus ;ksX; ugha gSA flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 80¼2½ dk Qk;nk uxjikfydk ifj"kn ds fo#) oknksa esa ugha fn;k tk ldrk rFkk uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dkuwuh lwpuk dh rkehy fd, fcuk okn pykus ;ksX; ugha gSA ¼iSjk 19½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 79 rFkk 80¼2½& &lwpuk ds ckjs esa dksbZ vfHkokd ugha& &lwpuk dh jlhn ugha& &lwpuk ds vHkko esa NwV dk ç‘u gh ugha mBrk& &lwpuk dks rkehy vkSj mldh çÑfr ds ckjs esa çdFku ds vHkko esa lwpuk dk vf/kR;tu Hkh ugha gks ldrkA 2003 ¼1½ ,e ih ts vkj 541 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 16 ls 18½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 10& &vf/klwpuk ij vk{ksi djrs gq, flfoy okn& &mlh ç;kstu ds fy, fjV ;kfpdk igys ls yafcr& &Uk;ky; }kjk ;g ns[kk tkuk visf{kr gS fd D;k flfoy okn jksd fn;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 20½
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 80¼2½& &oknh us igys fjV ;kfpdk Qkby dh& &ckn esa mlh okngsrqd ds fy, flfoy okn Qkby fd;k& &;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd dksbZ vR;ko‘;drk Fkh& &/kkjk 80¼2½ ds v/khu vuqKk çnku ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 8½
¼5½ vf/kR;tu& &i{kdkj ds i{k esa dkuwuh vf/kdkj l`ftr& &vf/kR;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 8½
¼6½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 80¼2½& &oknh }kjk vfoyac vkSj vR;ko‘;d vuqrks"k dh vko‘;drk vfHkopfur dh tkuk rFkk mls lkfcr djuk visf{kr gS& &,slh lanÙk jde dh olwyh tks çfrnk; fd, tkus ;ksX; gS& ,slk ekeyk vR;ko‘;d ;k vklUu ughaA ¼iSjk 9½
¼7½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870& &/kkjk 7¼4½& &fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963& &/kkjk 38& &oknh }kjk /ku ds lank; ls cpus ds fy, O;kns‘k dh çkFkZuk& &jde ij ewY;kuqkj U;k;ky; Qhl lanÙk dh tkuk gksxhA 2000¼1½ ts ,y ts 81 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 10½
¼8½ nLrkost& &xzg.k fd, x,& &okn fofuf‘pr djrs le; çnf‘kZr fd, tkuk visf{krA ¼iSjk 11½
¼9½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 80& &lwpuk& &vis{kk& &oknh dk uke] fooj.k vkSj fuokl] okngsrqd vkSj nkok fd;k x;k vuqrks"k mfYyf[kr gksuk vko‘;dA 1972 ts ,y ts ,l ,u 95 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 13½
Jha, J. -- 1. Since in both these appeals common questions of law arise and they are decided by common judgement by the trial Court, they are heard and decided together.
2. In First Appeal No. 175/95 respondent No.1 Gas Authority of India Limited (hereinafter, referred to as "GAIL") failed a civil suit and, in First Appeal No. 1/96 respondent No.1 National Fertilizers Limited (hereinafter, referred to as "NFL") failed a civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Guna. for declaration and perpetual injunction. Prayer in the suit filed by the GAIL was that the defendants 2 and 3, i.e_, Director. Town and Country Planning, and Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, have no jurisdiction to permit defendant No.4 Chief Executive Officer. Special Area Development Authority, Raghogarh to recover the external development fees. It is further prayed that the defendant No.6 Tehsildar, Tehsil Raghogarh. District Guna, has no jurisdiction to recover the said' fee from the plaintiff which is Government of India Undertaking. Similarly, in the suit filed by the NFL, it is prayed that the recovery of Rs. 2,53,00,000/-(Rs. two crore fifty three lac) as external development charge and its recovery as an-ears of land revenue under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code be declared as void ab initio and the defendants be restrained by issuing perpetual injunction from recovering the said fee from the plaintiff. In this suit, the plaintiff has impleaded the State of Madhya Pradesh, Special Area Development Authority, Municipal Council, Raghogarh, and the Tehsildar K.R. Katroliya by name, whereas in the civil suit filed by the GAIL, Special Area Development Authority has not been impleaded as party but Chief Executive Officer of the Special Area Development Authority is impleaded as a party. Subsequently, Municipal Council, Raghogarh has been impleaded as a party, whereas NFL has impleaded Municipal Council as party in the suit. With the consent of the parties, no evidence was recorded and the trial Court after hearing arguments, decreed the suit and has declared that the defendants had no right to recover the external development fee from the plaintiff and parties shall bear their own costs.
3. Counsel for the appellant challenged the decree on three grounds:
(i) that the suit has been filed before expiry of period of notice under section 80, CPC, and no suit is maintainable against the appellant Municipal Council without notice under section 319 of the Municipalities Act; (ii) that since the plaintiff is avoiding recovery wOl1h Rs. 2.53 lacs, therefore, without payment of ad valorem court fee, suit ought to have been dismissed or the trial Court should have rejected the plaint for insufficient payment of court-fee.
4. Counsel for the appellant contended that plaintiff respondent No.1 is not a "State" within the meaning of AI1icle 12 of the Constitution of India. Plaintiffs are companies registered under the companies Act and they cannot claim that they are Government of India Undertakings. Counsel for the appellant submitted that issue regarding want of notice under the M.P. Municipalities Act has not been framed by the trial Court and the trial Court has simply mentioned that since no serious objection is raised for dispensing with notice under section 80(2) CPC, therefore, the suit is permitted to be filed without notice under section 80 CPC. Finding pertaining to court fee is improper and contrary to law. As regards notification, counsel for the appellant submitted that the recovery of the fee is a part of contract between the plaintiff and the Special Area Development Authority and now Municipal Council. Once the plaintiffs were permitted to construct their factories and residential quarters on the condition that plaintiffs shall pay external development fee under the agreement order quashing the recovery is bad in law. Trial Court has not considered the agreement between the parties while decreeing the suit.
5. Counsel for the respon
SupremeToday
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
