A suit for the enforcement of contractual rights instituted by an unregistered entity is fundamentally defective and cannot be cured by subsequent registration. Additionally, strict adherence to mandatory statutory notice requirements is a prerequisite for commencing legal proceedings against public authorities.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of the present First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “Code”), the appellants, who is the original plaintiffs, challenge the judgment and decree dated 29.08.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Palanpur in Special Civil Suit No.45 of 1982, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed with costs.

2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to their original status and position to the learned Trial Court.

3. The brief facts borne out at the record are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction as well as damages for breach of contract. The case of the plaintiffs is that, Ratangadh Gram Panchayat, under the permission of the Deputy Collector, accept the bid of plaintiffs for cutting babool trees grown on land bearing Survey No.269, admeasuring 174 acres, which is a Gauchar land. The babool trees had grown on the said land was causing interference for grazing bovine. An auction was held on 16.06.1981 after obtaining the opinion of the Forest Officer and the Deputy Collector. The plaintiffs, being the highest bidder with a bid of Rs.17,500/-, succeeded in securing the right to cut the babool trees. The plaintiffs were informed vide outward No.13 dated 19.07.1981 and was permitted to cut the babool trees. The plaintiffs were required to complete the necessary formalities, including execution of the agreement, on or before 31.07.1982. According to the plaintiffs, in the meantime, he received a notice from the Forest Office restraining them from cutting babool trees on 20 acres of land, which had been reserved for the purpose of a forest station. Pursuant thereto, plaintiffs approached Ratangadh Gram Panchayat, which in turn addressed a letter to the Forest Department requesting to release of 20 acres of land that had been handed over to the Forest Department in 1973 for expansion of forest area for a period of five years.

3.1 Since the said period for which forest department was handed over the 20 acres land, had expired, the Gram Panchayat requested the Forest Department to permit the plaintiffs to cut babool trees on the said 20 acres of land. However, the Forest Department did not grant such permission. Thereafter, plaintiffs approached the learned Trial Court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right to cut the babool trees. Subsequently, the plaintiffs amended the suit and claimed damages of Rs.5,27,000/- for breach of contract, contending that they could not cut babool trees from the entire land of Survey No.269.

3.2 The defendants were duly served. Defendant No.1- Ratangadh Gram Panchayat, filed its written statement at Exh.18, raising contentions that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit and the suit is not in proper form. The plaintiffs, being an unregistered partnership firm, could not maintain the suit and no notice under Section 320 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (for short, “G.P. Act”) has been issued prior to filing the suit. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It is further contended that as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the plaintiffs failed to cut the babool trees even in other portion of Survey No.269 and had themselves stopped the work on the illusionary ground that the F