ORDER

02.11.2021 Heard Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.K.

Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate. None appears for the respondent nos.3 and 4.

2. It has been informed by the Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs that the respondent no.3 had expired in the meantime for which the plaintiffs had already taken steps before the Trial Court for substituting him. In view of the order which I propose to pass, question of substitution of the proforma-respondent no.3 does not arise.

3. This is an application under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Cachar, Silchar in Petition No.1271/1 arising out of Title Suit No.75/2020, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction was rejected. For the purpose of disposal of the case, the reliefs sought for in the plaint are quoted below –

“a) Decree declaring the plaintiffs right, title, interest over the land described in schedule I below within the properties as described in Schedule-A below with decree for confirmation of possession thereof.

b) Decree declaring that the plaintiffs together with the Proforma Defendants jointly have undivided common rights over the common properties as described in Schedule-II below.

c) Decree declaring that the Principal Defendant No.1(a) to 1(c) have no right to undertake any construction work over the portion of the common properties as described in Schedule III below within the total common properties as described in Schedule-II below which is included in Schedule-A property as per the deeds of settlement mentioned hereinabove.

d) Decree for removal of all illegal constructions and structures etc. over the land described in Schedule-III below by way of removal therefrom.

e) Decree for demarcation of the portions of the plaintiffs and the Defendants as per the respective deeds of settlement.

f) Permanent injunction against the Principal defendant No.1(a) to 1(c) restraining her men, agent, etc. and/or any one claiming through her/them restraining her/them from undertaking any construction work over the common portion of the property as described in Schedule-III below within Schedule-A as mentioned hereunder.

g) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be found to be entitled in law and in equity.

h) Cost of the suit.”

4. In the said suit it may be relevant herein to mention that the Silchar Municipality represented by its Executive Officer was made a proforma-defendant. However, a perusal of the reliefs claimed in the suit and more particularly paragraph no.7 of the plaint, it would reveal that the Silchar Municipality have been impleaded as a proforma-defendant without seeking any relief against them. The petitioners who are the principal-defendant nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) filed a joint written statement denying the statements and allegations made in the plaint as well as also raising the point of maintainability of the suit. In paragraph no.3 of the said written statement, it has been categorically mentioned that in view of the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (for short the Act), the suit is barred by law and the subject matter of the suit is triable by the Municipality Authority, Silchar Town as per the provisions of Section 174/302 of the said Act. It has been also averred in the written statement that the Act confers upon the Silchar Municipality a jurisdiction which is effective and efficacious and as such the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is completely ousted. Pursuant to the filing of the written statement, an application was filed which was registered as Petition No.1271/1, whereby the petitioners herein sought for dismissal of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs who were the re