SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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:

Advocates:
Tehjeeb Khan,

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top