IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 10 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 541 of 2025 NAGAR PARISHAD HARPALPUR AND OTHERS Versus PANKAJ RAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shyam Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The present revision under Section 115 CPC has been filed arising out of the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the trial Court in RCSA No.14A/2025, whereby rejecting the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has erred in omitting to consider the true effect and scope of Section 319(3) of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, which bars suit against a Municipality without prior notice and until the expiration of 2 months next after issuance of a notice, stating the cause of action. It is contended that the trial Court has erroneously omitted to overlook the legal position and also erroneously not considered the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona v. Ramnath, (2014) 6 SCC 394, wherein the suit has been found to be not maintainable if the relief of perpetual injunction is sought along with declaration of title.

3. Upon considering the aforesaid arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that as per Section 319 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1960, it is provided as under:-

319. Bar of suit in absence 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 Specified Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877).

4. Though, as per Section 319(1) there is bar to file suit in absence of notice, but as per section 319(3), the said section would not apply in case of any suit instituted under Section 54 of Specific Relief Act, 1877. Section 54 of the said Act is pari materia to Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and provides for prayer of perpetual injunction. The trial Court in the present case has held the suit to be maintainable on the ground that the said case was case of removal of encroachment, but the present case does not seem to be a case for removal of encroachment.

5. However, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Minohna has held as under:-

"8. Respondent 1-plaintiff cannot derive advantage of sub-section (3) of Section 319 which stipulates non-application of Section 319 when the suit was instituted under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (old provision) equivalent to Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and reads as follows:

“38. Perpetual injunctions when granted.—(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.

(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the Rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.

(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right to, or enjoyment of, property the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the follow