Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6058
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J
AHSAN KHAN AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
NAGAR PALIK NIGAM GWALIOR THR. AND OTHERS – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION No. 78 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Shri Dilip Awasthi
The court emphasized that procedural requirements should not hinder substantial justice, particularly in cases concerning unauthorized construction.
Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act - Section 307(5) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Application claiming relief against construction contrary to sanctions - Maintenance questioned on grounds of notice requirements under Section 401 - Court ruled that satisfaction of notice requirements can be inferred from complaints made - Applicants' primary grievance was against the private respondents, allowing for application under Section 307(5) despite technical non-compliance. (Paras 1, 5, 9, 11)
(B) Jurisdiction of courts - Respect for procedural law - The court emphasized that an application under Section 307(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act should not be treated as a regular suit thus circumventing strict notice provisions where justice merits it. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
Applicants challenged an order rejecting their application under Section 307(5) against private parties following unaddressed complaints regarding unauthorized construction. Respondent’s argument relied on non-issuance of notice under Section 401 led to a ruling affirming jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the primary grievance was against private parties; therefore, reliance on procedural missteps did not bar proceedings under Section 307(5).
Issues: The main issues involved the interpretation of notice requirements regarding timely relief against unlawful construction and whether jurisdiction could allow relief despite such procedural deficiencies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the essence of justice requires flexibility in procedural law interpretation, ensuring substantive grievances can be addressed even amidst procedural missteps.
Result: Civil Revision is allowed, order set aside and remanded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under section 307(5) challenged court's application of notice requirements. (Para 1 , 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 25 OF AUGUST, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 78 of 2015 AHSAN KHAN AND OTHERS Versus NAGAR PALIK NIGAM GWALIOR THR. AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for applicants.
None for respondents No.1, 3 to 8.
Shri Dilip Awasthi - Government Advocate for respondent No.2/State.
ORDER This Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 01-10-2015 passed by Ninth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Case No. 65 of 2014 MJC, by which the application filed by the applicants under Section 307 (5) of the Municipal Corporation Act has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the application was not filed after 30 days from issuing a notice to the Municipal Corporation under Section 401 of the Municipal Corporation Act.
2. Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the applicants have filed an application under Section 307 (5) of the Municipal Corporation Act against the respondents No.3 to 8. It is submitted that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was Signature Not Verified filed by the respondents No.3 to 8 on the ground that the applicants had not waited for 30 days after issuing notice to the Municipal Corporation under Section 401 of the Municipal Corporation Act, therefore the application filed under Section 307 (5) of the Municipal Corporation Act was not maintainable. By the impugned order, the said application has been allowed.
3. Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the primary relief claimed by applicants is against the respondents No.3 to 8 and not against the Municipal Corporation. Even otherwise, the case in hand is duly covered by the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati and others Vs.
Dhruv Yadav and Others, in Civil Revision No. 56/2025.
4. None appears for the respondents 1, 3 to 8 though served.
5. This Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati (supra) has held as under:
"This Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by X District Judge, Gwalior in MJC No.267/2021 by which an application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 307 (5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act alleging that applicants have raised and are raising construction contrary to sanctioned layout. In spite of objections raised by neighbors, applicants did not stop the construction. Even complaint was made to Municipal Corporation, but no action was taken and therefore, the application under Section 307 (5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act was filed alleging Signature Not Verified that applicants are left with no other option but to take recourse to Section 307 (5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act .
3. The applicants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC alleging that respondent No.1 had not given notice to the Municipal Corporation under Section 401 of Municipal Corporation Act which is mandatory in nature and therefore, application filed by respondent No.1 against applicants under Section 307 (5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act is not maintainable. Said application was rejected by the impugned order. Challenging the impugned order, it is submitted that the Trial Court has committed a material illegality by rejecting the aforesaid contention made by applicants.
4. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 has failed to mention as to when the cause of action arose, therefore, in absence of cause of action, application under Section 307 (5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act
