ANIL VERMA
Krishi Ujap Mandi Samiti Dhar – Appellant
Versus
Khemcham Jain Proprie – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anil Verma, J.
1. The petitioner has filed present revision under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (for short C.P.C) being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 09/09/2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Dhar in Civil Suit no. 99-A/2021, whereby an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the trial Court and raised a preliminary objection to maintainability of such a civil suit contending that in view of Sec. 66 of MP Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (in short Adhiniyam) the jurisdiction of civil Court was excluded and cancellation of license could not be challenged before the civil Court. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the application vide impugned order dtd. 09/09/2021, hence present revision before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff has not given any notice before filing of the suit to the petitioner/defendant and as per Sec. 66 and
Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. Govind Oil Mill , Shivpuri
Dhulabai etc vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shivpuri vs. Ramjilal Harnarayan
Nagar Palika Nigam and another vs. Hemant Kumar
Nagar Palika Nigam Indore vs. Payare Ali
Om Agrawal vs. Haryana Financial Corporation
Oma alias Omprakash vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Sapan Sukhdeo Sable and others vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.