1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 939 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
JANPAD PANCHAYAT KASRAWAD THROUGH
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KASRAWAD TEHSIL KASRAWAD,
DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI TEHJEEB KHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
SHAKUNTALA W/O LATE JAGDISHCHANDRA
MANDLOI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS WARD NO. 3,
KASRAWAD TEHSIL KASRAWAD,
DISTRICT KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
JILA PANCHAYAT KHARGONE
THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KHARGONE TEHSIL KHARGONE,
DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH
COLLECTOR KHARGONE,
DISTRICT KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 02-01-2023
18:35:33
Signature Not Verified
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMOL SHRIVASTAVA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
1.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is
finally heard.
2.
By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner/defendnat No.1 has challenged the order dated
17.02.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kasrawad,
District Khargone in RCS-B No.6/2016 whereby its application under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint has been rejected.
3.
The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has instituted an action for
recovery of a sum of Rs.2,86,886/- from the defendants submitting that
she is running a photocopy centre and defendant No.1 has been getting
the work of photocopy done from her by inviting tenders which have
been awarded to her. She has worked as per the tenders and has
submitted bills to defendant No.1 from time to time but as on date of
suit a sum of Rs.2,86,886/- has not been paid to her for the work and is
outstanding.
3
4.
The defendant No.1 filed an application before the trial Court for
rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is barred by virtue of
Section 108(2) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (here-in-after
referred to as "the Adhiniyam, 1993") since as per plaintiff herself she
has not instituted the claim within a period of six months from the date
of accrual of cause of action to her. The said application has been
rejected by the trial Court by observing that the contention of the
plaintiff that defendants have not paid the amount to her for the work
done by her cannot be said to be an act done under the provisions of the
Adhiniyam, 1993.
5.
Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that as per plaintiff
herself the cause of action for institution of the claim has accrued to her
in the year 2014 whereas the suit has been instituted by her in the year
2016 which is beyond a period of six months as provided under Section
108(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 hence is apparently barred by time. The
defendants had given work of photocopy to the plaintiff under the
provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1993 hence for instituting an action
against them the period of limitation would be six months.
6.
Per contra learned counsel for plaintiff submits that acts of the
defendants cannot be said to have been done or purported to be done
under the Adhiniyam, 1993 hence the bar under Section 108 (2) of the
Adhiniyam, 1993 would not be applicable. The action of defendants in
withholding the amount to the plaintiff to which she is legally entitled
4
cannot be said to be done under the Adhiniyam, 1993 hence the bar as
raised by defendant No.1 is not attracted. Reliance has been placed by
him on the decision of this Court in Nagar Palika, Murena and
Another V/s. Shivshankar Gupta 2005 (4) M.P.H.T. 19, I.B.Mishra
V/s. Nagar Panchayat Suhagpur and Others 2013 (4) MPLJ 578
and Bhaiyalal Pannalal V/s. Municipal Committee, Murwada 1958
MPLJ 251.
7.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
8.
Section 319 of M.P. Municipalities Act,1961 reads as under :-
319. Bar of suit inabsence of notice.—(1) No suit shall
be instituted against any Council or any Councillor,
officer or servant thereof or any person acting under the
direction of any such Council, Councillor, officer or
servant for anything done or purporting to be done under
this Act, until the expiration of two months next after a
notice, in writing, stating the cause of action, the name
and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the relief
which he claims has been, in the case of a Council
delivered or left at its office and in the case of any such
member, officer, servant or person as aforesaid, delivered
to him or left at his office or usual place of abode; and the
plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been
so delivered or left.
(2) Every such suit shall be dismissed unless it is
instituted within eight months from the date of the accrual
of the alleged cause of action.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to
any suit instituted under Section 54 of the Specifi
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.