Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.
Shri. Gotjeng Sangma & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Smti. Aijonish D. Shira - Respondent
CRP No. 3 of 2021
Decided on : 30-04-2021
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order 2014 - Rule 6 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Jurisdiction - Whether question of jurisdiction had been finally decided vide order together with injunction application or whether issue is still alive for consideration - Petitioners grievance centers around their contention that apart from injunction order which was made absolute, their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also rejected by Trial Court by impugned order and same being not appealable they are invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court and at same time questioning orders.
Finding of the court: A bare perusal of the impugned order as far as it concerns issue on jurisdiction, shows that same was not given any due consideration and appears as if Trial Court was oblivious and unaware as to the grounds taken on question of jurisdiction. As such said finding, not being based on any materials or any satisfaction, cannot be said to be conclusive or to have effectively dealt with the issue, so raised - Other conspicuous fact which cannot be overlooked by this Court is existence of the second petition in the records under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for which an order has been passed fixing a date for hearing - District Council Courts are not functioning due to an agitation by employees of Garo Hills Autonomous District Council and that there is no likelihood of matter being heard at an early date - Court direction that Trial Court take up the issue concerning jurisdiction as a preliminary issue to be decided at the earliest.
Result: Revision application disposed of
JUDGMENT :
A1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the orders dated 11.12.2020 and 17.12.2020 passed in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2020 and Title Suit No. 26 of 2020, by the Court of the Judicial Officer, Sub-ordinate District Council Court, GHADC, Tura. Against the same order dated 07.12.2020, the petitioner has also assailed the same by invoking Rule 6 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order 2014 read with Section 115 CPC by contending that in the same order itself the petitioners’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected.
2. The facts briefly put is that the petitioner had leased out 4 (four) hectares of land to the respondent vide a Lease Agreement dated 18.07.2017 for stone mining activities but as some dispute arose as to the validity of the said agreement, the same it appears was terminated vide Notice dated 12.10.2020. This prompted the respondent herein to institute a suit before the Subordinate District Council Court, GHADC, Tura for declaration and for grant of temporary injunction which was registered as T.S No. 26 of 2020 and Misc. Case No. 10 of 2020 respectively. The Trial Court thereafter, by order dated 26.11.2020 while issuing notice to the petitioner fixing 17.12.2020 for appearance, granted temporary ex-parte injunction restraining the petitioners from entering the suit land and disturbing the possession of the respondent. The petitioner then submitted his show cause and written statement on 09.12.2020. Thereafter on hearing the parties, by order dated 17.12.2020, the Trial Court was then pleased to make the temporary injunction order absolute. Apart from the written statement and show cause, the petitioner also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the dispute was commercial in nature and as such, dispute being covered by the Commercial Courts Act, of 2015, the District Council Court did not have jurisdiction over the same.
3. The petitioners grievance centers around their contention that apart from the injunction order which was made absolute, their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 17.12.2020 and the same being not appealable they are invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and at the same time questioning the orders dated 11.12.2020 and 17.12.2020.
4. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No. 2 in her capacity as the female Nokma of Kilman Gittim Akhing had leased out a stone quarry measuring 4 (four) hectares to the respondent and a Lease Agreement was executed to this effect dated 18.07.2017. He submits that the Lease Agreement was entered into by the petitioner No. 2, without consulting the clan members, which she was under an obligation to, as the lease concerned land of the Akhing. He then submits that the petitioner No. 1 being her husband and the male Nokma on coming to learn about the Lease Agreement then filed a complaint before the Revenue Authority of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) questioning the validity of the lease agreement. Learned counsel submits that the proceedings before the Revenue Authority then culminated in an order dated 09.09.2020, wherein the EM In-charge Land Revenue (GHADC) observed that the same was a fit case for examination by a Civil Court. He then submits that apart from moving for dismissal of the respondent application for mining license/lease before the Forest Department, the petitioner No. 1 then issued a Notice dated 12.10.2020 terminating the Lease Agreement.
5. Learned counsel submits that the respondent thereafter, had instituted a suit being T.S No. 26 of 2020 from which the present proceeding has arisen and that by order dated 26.11.2020, learned Trial Court was plea
The main legal point established is that the Trial Court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC at any stage of the suit and the averments in the plaint are crucial for deciding su....
A Title Suit filed without jurisdiction cannot lead to valid execution; the doctrine of lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers to existing litigation outcomes.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over agricultural land disputes when a revenue suit is pending, and merits cannot be evaluated at the application stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Mere plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC taken up by the petitioners as defendants in the trial Court was not with respect to filing of the suit on the same cause of action, but, Order II Rule 2 of CPC wa....
(1) It is plaint averment that is required to be primarily considered at stage of considering application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.(2) Plea with respect to Order II Rule 2 of CPC has to be e....
Objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity; failure to do so precludes raising them later in appellate proceedings.
All amendments necessary for determining the real issue in controversy between the parties must be allowed, and the fact that the amendment may be belated cannot be a ground to disallow the amendment....
Civil Law – Decree - A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of suit - It m....
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
