Back
2003(1) JLJ 396
A.K. Gohil, J.
Municipal Corporation Ratlam
Versus
Dilip Singh and another
Civil Revisional No. 338 of 1999; against the order of Civil Judge.
Indore;
Decided on : 24.10.2002.
On 12.2.1999, the respondents came to know through newspaper report that the buildings which are consented by them are being demolished for some contravention of Municipal Rules and bye-laws. After reading the newspaper, on the same day the respondents served notices on the Municipal Corporation under section 401 (1) of the Municipal Corporation Act as notice under section 401(1) is required to be served on the Corporation before filing a suit and also on the same day they filed civil suits alongwith applications under section 151, CPC praying that leave be granted and the application for injunction be heard so that they may not be put to loss. The trial Court, by impugned order dated 12.2.1999, granted leave under section 151, CPC and thereafter also granted injunction in favour of the respondents. Subsequently, the injunction was confirmed, against which the Municipal Corporation has filed Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal was allowed and the case has been remanded back for rehearing after the expiry or the period of one month as required under section 401 (1) of the Municipal Corporation Act. The Corporation has filed a separate revision against the impugned order challenging grant of leave under section 151, CPC. [Para 2
Held : There is no analogous provision in section 401 like sub-section (2) in section 80 CPC. It may be true that in that case if the Court is not empowered to grant leave under section 151, CPC then certainly the suit is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be returned or rejected. According to this Court, the law cannot be without remedy and the party cannot be allowed to face injustice in the absence of any specific provision under section 401 for grant of leave. It is also true that under section 151, the Court enjoys the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. Section 94 of the CPC also provides about the supplementary proceedings. As per section 94 of the CPC in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may, if it is so prescribed, grant a temporary injunction or make such further interlocutory order, as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. 1977 JLJ 184 relied on. 2001(l) MPJR 227 and 2000(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 184 discussed. [Para 5
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 151 -- M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 -- S. 401 -- period of notice under S. 401 of the Act not expired -- leave to file suit cannot be granted -- Court can grant temporary injunction even without filing suit till expiry of notice period for filing suit.
The Court should not have granted leave under section 151, CPC because there is no provision for grant of such leave under section 401. Therefore, technically the Court might have granted leave to file suit but instead of granting leave to file suit Court should have granted injunction simply on an application under section 151 for a limited period of two months and thereafter the party may file regular suit after the expiry of the period of statutory notice and also pray for continuance of injunction granted on the application under section 151, CPC. Even this application under section 151 can be filed without filing a suit which is maintainable independently. 1977 JLJ 184 relied on. [Para 7
¼1½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 401 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 151] 94 rFkk 80¼2½ && uxjikfyd fuxe ds fo:) okn && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 401 ds v/khu lwpuk dh rkehy rFkk volku ds fcuk Qkby ugha fd;k tk ldrk && U;k;ky; rc Hkh U;k;ky; dh izfØ;k ds nq:i;ksx ds fuokj.k ds fy, varfuZfgr ‘kfDr dk voyac ysus rFkk ,slk O;kns‘k ikfjr djus esa l{ke gS tks U;k;fgr esa vko‘;d gksA
12-2-1999 dks izR;FkhZx.k dks lekpkji= dh fjiksVZ ds ek/;e ls Kkr gqvk fd muds }kjk fufeZr bekjrs uxjikfyd fu;eksa rFkk mifu;eksa ds dqN mYya?kuksa ds dkj.k rksM+h tk jgh gSaA lekpkji= i<+us ds i‘pkr~ izR;FkhZx.k us mlh fnu uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 401¼1½ ds v/khu uxjikfyd fuxe dks lwpuk dh rkehy dh D;ksafd /kkjk 401¼1½ ds v/khu] okn Qkby djus ls iwoZ fuxe dks lwpuk dh rkehy dh tkuk visf{kr gS( rFkk mlh fnu mUgksaus flfoy okn Hkh Qkby fd, ftuds lkFk flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 151 ds v/khu bl izkFkZuk ds vkosnu Fks fd btktr iznÙk dh tk, vkSj O;kns‘k ds fy, vkosnu lquk tk, ftlls mUgsa gkfu ugha igq¡psA vkf{kIr vkns‘k fnukad 12-2-1999 }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; us flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 151 ds v/khu btktr iznÙk dh] rRi‘pkr~ izR;FkhZx.k ds i{k esa O;kns‘k Hkh iznku fd;kA ckn esa O;kns‘k dh iqf"V dh xbZ ftlds fo:) uxjikfyd fuxe us izdh.kZ vihy Qkby dhA vihy eatwj dj yh xbZ rFkk ekeyk] uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 401¼1½ ds v/khu visf{krkuqlkj ,d ekl dh vof/k ds volku ds i‘pkr~ iqu% lquokbZ ds fy, izfrizsf"kr fd;k x;k gSA flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 151 ds v/khu btktr ds iznku dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, fuxe }kjk vkf{kIr vkns‘k ds fo:) i`Fkd~ iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk Qkby dh xbZ gSA ¿ iSjk 2
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 401 esa /kkjk 80 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ dh Hkk¡fr dksbZ ln`‘k mica/k ugha gSA ;g lR; gks ldrk gS fd ;fn ml ekeys esa U;k;ky; flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 151 ds v/khu btktr iznÙk djus ds fy, l‘kDr ugha gS rc fuf‘pr :i ls okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS rFkk okni= ykSVk, tkus vFkok ukeatwj fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA bl U;k;ky; ds vuqlkj] fof/k mipkjfoghu ugha gks ldrh rFkk /kkjk 401 ds v/khu btktr ds iznku ds fy, fofufnZ"V mica/k ds vHkko esa i[kdkj dks vU;k; Hkksxus ugha fn;k tk ldrkA ;g Hkh lR; gS fd /kkjk 151 ds v/khu U;k;ky; dks U;k;fgr esa vFkok U;k;ky; dh izfØ;k ds nq:i;ksx ds fuokj.k ds fy, tSls vko‘;d gksa] oSls vkns‘k djus dh varfuZfgr ‘kfDr izkIr gSA flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 94 esa Hkh iwjd dk;Zokfg;ksa ds ckjs esa mica/k gSA flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 94 ds vuqlkj] U;k; ds mn~ns‘; fu"Qy gksus ls jksdus ds fy, U;k;ky; }kjk] ;fn ,slk fofgr gks] vLFkk;h O;kns‘k iznku fd;k tk ldrk gS vFkok ,slk vfrfjDr varoZrhZ vkns‘k fd;k tk ldrk gS tSlk U;k;ky; dks _tq rFkk lqfo/kktud izrhr gksA 1977 ts ,y ts 184 voyafcrA 2001¼1½ ,e ih ts vkj 227 rFkk 2000¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 184 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 5
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 151 && e-iz- uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1960 && /kkjk 401 && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 401 ds v/khu lwpuk dh vof/k volkfur ugha && okn Qkby djus dh btktr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh && okn Qkby fd, fcuk Hkh U;k;ky; }kjk okn Qkby djus ds fy, lwpuk dh vof/k ds volku rd vLFkk;h O;kns‘k iznku fd;k tk ldrk gSA
U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 151 ds v/khu btktr iznku ugha dh tkuk pkfg, Fkh D;ksafd /kkjk 401 ds v/khu ,slh btktr iznÙk djus ds fy, dksbZ mica/k ugha gSA vr%] rduhdh rkSj ij U;k;ky; }kjk okn Qkby djus ds fy, btktr nh xbZ gks ldrh gS ijarq okn Qkby djus ds fy, btktr iznku djus ds ctk; U;k;ky; dks dsoy /kkjk 151 ds v/khu vkosnu ij nks ekl dh lhfer vof/k ds fy, O;kns‘k iznku djuk pkfg, Fkk] rRi‘pkr~ i{kdkj dkuwuh lwpuk dh vof/k ds volku ds i‘pkr~ fu;fer okn Qkby dj ldrk gS rFkk flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 151 ds v/khu vkosnu dj iznÙk O;kns‘k dh fujarjrk ds fy, izkFkZuk dj ldrk gSA /kkjk 151 ds v/khu ;g vkosnu Hkh] Lora= :i ls pyk, tkus ;ksX; okn Qkby fd, fcuk Qkby fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1977 ts ,y ts 184 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 7
Key Points: - The case concerns grant of leave under section 151 CPC to file a suit against the Municipal Corporation after notices under section 401(1) of the MP Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (!) . - The Division Bench held that the Code's provisions are not exhausted and courts may devise procedures not prohibited by CPC, resorting to inherent powers for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process (recognizing inherent power to grant temporary injunction even without a suit in certain scenarios) (!) , (!) , (!) , (!) , (!) . - There is no analogous provision in section 401(1) similar to subsection (2) of section 80 CPC; thus leave under section 151 CPC to file a suit against the Municipal Corporation is not expressly provided (!) , (!) . - The court concluded that the revisions are disposed of and that separate suits may be registered and decided in accordance with law, directing parties to bear their own costs (!) , (!) .
1. The applicant Municipal Corporation, Ratlam has filed these civil revisions against the order dated 12.2.1999 granting leave under section 151 CPC to file suit against the Municipal Corporation after notices under section 401(1) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.
2. The brief facts for the disposal of these revisions are that on 12.2.1999, the respondents came to know through newspaper report that the buildings which are constructed by them are being demolished for some contravention of Municipal Rules and bye laws. After reading the newspaper, on the same day the respondents served notices on the Municipal Corporation under section 401(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act as notice under section 401(1) is required to be served on the Corporation before filing a suit and also on the same day, they filed civil suits alongwith applications under section 151 CPC praying that leave be granted and the application for injunction be heard so that they may not be put to loss. The trial Court by impugned order dated 12.2.1999, granted leave under section 151 CPC and thereafter also granted injunction in favour of the respondents. Subsequently, the injunction was confirmed against which the Municipal Corporation has filed Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal was allowed and the case has been remanded back for rehearing after the expiry of the period of one month as required under section 401(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act. The Corporation has filed a separate revision against the impugned order challenging grant of leave under section 151 CPC.
3. I have heard Shri Kochatta, LC for applicant and Shri S.K. Pawnekar, LC for respondents and also perused the record.
4. The submission of Shri Kochatta is that since there is no provision under section 401(1) similar to that of sub-section (2) of section 80, leave cannot be granted for filing a suit against the Municipal Corporation and since there is no provision under the law for granting leave, the power under section 151 CPC cannot be exercised. The submission of Shri Pawnekar is that these civil revisions have become infructuous because the lower appellate Court has already given direction in the Miscellaneous Appeal that the same be reheard after registration of suit. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the sole question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether with the aid of provisions of section 151 CPC, leave can be granted to file a suit. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision in the case of Ram Krishna Parashar v. Chironji Lal Vaishya and others (1977 JLJ 184), in which the Division Bench of this High Court has held that where the period of notice under section 80 of CPC has not expired, an intending plaintiff can file a substantive application praying for grant of a temporary injunction. Such an application is necessarily one under the CPC, wherein inherent powers of the Court are invoked for grant of a temporary injunction. Such an order will only be operative till the party concerned is able to file a suit and is able to obtain temporary injunction from the Court in the suit itself. Meaning thereby the direction of the Division Bench was that a suit is not maintainable then independently Court can come to the rescue of a party and grant temporary injunction for a limited period under its inherent powers.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited two more decisions of this Court in the case of Baldev Singh Bhatia v. The Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Raipur and others (2001(1) MPJR 227), in which it has been held that no suit can be filed before the expiration of one month of service of notice and that Court cannot grant leave to file suit as such powers are not conferred under section 401(1), and in the case of Municipal Corporation Murwarka-Kami, Katni v. Lalchand Jaiswal (2000(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 184 = 2000(2) MPLJ 288), in which it has also been held that witho
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
