SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(MP) 42

1992 (0) MPLJ 292
K.K. Verma, J.
Umashankar Sharma
vs
Mansingh Narbarsingh And Ors.
Decided on : 24 January, 1992

The main legal point established is that the application under Order 1, Rule 3B of the Civil Procedure Code is not necessary unless the conditions for entertainment of suits as per the rule are fulfilled.

Headnote:

Order 1 Rule 3B - Suit for declaration of title and possession of land - The court dismissed the application under Order 1, Rule 3B of the Civil Procedure Code as it was not necessary in the case, and the appeal was listed for final hearing.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed an application under Order 1, Rule 3B of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking relief for delivery of possession of agricultural land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application under Order 1, Rule 3B was not necessary in this case and dismissed the application.

Issues: The issue was whether the application under Order 1, Rule 3B of the Civil Procedure Code was tenable in the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application under Order 1, Rule 3B was not necessary in the case as the conditions for entertainment of suits as per the rule were not fulfilled.

Final Decision: The application under Order 1, Rule 3B, Civil Procedure Code was dismissed, and the appeal was listed for final hearing.

ORDER

K.K. Verma, J.

1. Counsel are heard on appellant's application dated 17-12-1991 purporting to be under Order 1, Rule 3B inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by a Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act.

2. The suit was the heading "Suit for declaration of title and possession of land." In the relief clause the first relief was: "Delivery of possession of agricultural land." At paragraph 2 of the instant application it has been averred that the appellant does not have any agricultural land except the lands in dispute and that no ceiling case is pending in respect of his lands and that the appellant has no information of any such proceedings. Order 1, Rule 3B runs as follows :

"3B. Conditions for entertainment of suits. - (1) . No suit or proceeding for, -

(a) declaration of title or any right over any agricultural land, with or without any other relief; or

(b) specific performance of any contract for transfer of any agricultural land with or without any other relief, shall be entertained by any Court, unless the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, knowing or having reason to believe that a return under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (No. 20 of 1960) in relation to land aforesaid has been or is required to be filed by him or by any other person before competent authority appointed under that Act has impleaded the State of Madhya Pradesh as one of the defendants or non-applicants, as the case may be, to such suit or proceeding.

(2) No Court shall proceed with pending suit or proceeding referred to in sub-rule (1) unless, as soon as may be, the State Government is so impleaded as a defendant or non-applicant.

Explanation. - The expression "suit or proceeding" used in this sub-rule shall include appeal, reference or revision, but shall not include any proceeding for or connected with execution of any decree or final order passed in such suit or proceeding."

3. In the instant case clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3B is fulfilled. However, the averment in paragraph 2 of the application does not bring the case under the following provisions of clause (b) of sub-rule (1), Rule 3B :

"........Unless the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, knowing or having reason to believe that a return under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, in relation to land aforesaid has been or is required to be filed by him or by any other person before competent authority appointed under that Act."

4. Shri Chaturvedi says that on his part he too does not have any material on the lines referred to in clause (b).

5. In the result, the application under Order 1, Rule 3B, Civil Procedure Code is not tenable .and is not at all necessary in this case. The application is dismissed.

6. The appeal will now be listed for final hearing after issuing S.P.C. to unrepresented respondents.

Certified copy to go to the parties by the next working days.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top