Bombay High Court
Pravin Jaywant Madye vs Grampanchayat Kalthar-Devali, ... on 4 August, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-AS:33898
54-SA-533-2019.doc
Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.533 OF 2019
ARJUN Pravin Jaywant Madye ...Appellant
VITTHAL Versus
KUDHEKAR
Digitally signed by
Grampanchayat Kalthar-Devali, ...Respondents
ARJUN VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR Through Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Kalthar-Devali,
Date: 2025.08.07
22:20:35 +0530 Taluka Malvan, Dist: Sindhudurg & Ors.
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1211 OF 2019
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.533 OF 2019
Pravin Jaywant Madye ...Applicant
Versus
Grampanchayat Kalthar-Devali, ...Respondents
Through Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Kalthar-Devali,
Taluka Malvan, Dist: Sindhudurg & Ors.
______________________________________________________________
Mr. Ajay Laxman Bhise a/w Tejas Vijaykumar Dhotre, for the Appellant.
Mr. Dheeraj Patil a/w Nitin Jagtap & Prachi Mulje, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, AGP, for the Respondent No.3-State.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 04 AUGUST 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Bhise, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants,
Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Mr.
Kulkarni, learned AGP, for the Respondent No.3-State.
2. Mr. Bhise, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants tenders
Affidavit of service.
54-SA-533-2019.doc
3. A learned Single Judge has framed the substantial questions of
law by Order dated 12th August 2024 and issued notice for final
disposal at admission stage. The said substantial questions of law are as
follows :-
"(i) Whether in view of the specific pleadings in paragraph
7 of the plaint, the plaint could have been rejected under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
("CPC") ?
(ii) Whether the ground of want of clarity in the prayer
for compensation, the suit could have been rejected under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC ?
(iii) Whether both courts erred in not appreciating the
specific pleadings made in paragraph 7 of the plaint regarding
issuance of notice under Section 80 of CPC ? "
4. Perusal of the record shows that the Appellant filed Suit on 28th
March 2006, seeking following reliefs:
ßv- izfroknh ua-1 rs 3 ;kauh nkok feGdrhe/;s csdk;ns'khji.ks o
vukf/kdkjs vfrdze.k d:u dk<ysyk lqekjs 4 ehVj :afnpk o 87 ehVj
ykachP;k jLR;k[kkyhy tkxspk [kqyk dCTkk oknhl izfroknh ua-1 rs 3 ;kapd
s Mwu
feGkok-
c- lnj Hkkxkpk [kqyk dCtk izfroknh ua-1 rs 3 ;kapsdMwu feGsi;Zr
a
njfno'kh :-100@− ¼:i;s 'kaHkj ek=½ izek.ks oknhl izfroknhadMwu uqdlkuh
olwy gksÅu feGkoh-
d- ;k nkO;kpk [kpZ rdzkjh izfroknhadMwu oknhl olwy gkssÅu feGkok-
M- ;k nkO;kr nq:Lrh vFkok lq/kkj.kk djko;kph >kY;kl r'kh ijokuxh
oknhl vlkoh-
b- brj ;ksX; rs U;k;kps gqdwe Ogkosr-Þ
5. In the said Suit, Defendant No.1 is the Grampanchayat, Kalethar-
54-SA-533-2019.doc
Devali, Defendant No.2 is the Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg and Defendant
No.3 is the State of Maharashtra.
6. As far as notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 ("CPC") as also notice under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act,
1958, the Plaintiff has contended as follows in Paragraph No.7:
ß07- izfroknhus nkok feGdrhe/;s dk<ysyk jLrk o nkok feGdrhe/khy
Hkkxkpk ?ksrysyk dCtk gk csdk;ns'khj vlwu izfroknhaP;k lnjP;k d`R;kl
dk;|kps dks.krsgh laj{k.k ykHk.kkjs ukgh- lcc izLrqr
q nkok nk[ky dj.ksiwohZ
izfroknh ua-3 ;kal fnok.kh izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 ps dye 80 o eqc a bZ
xzkeiapk;r vf/kfu;e] 1958 [kkyhy uksVhlk izfroknhauk ns.;kph dk;|kus
dks.krhgh vko';drk ukgh- fdacgwuk oknhus ;kiwohZ fnysY;k fn-
14−04−1998 o fn-19−12−1998 jksthP;k uksVhlk ák nkO;kps Lo:i
o oknh ekfxr vlysY;k nknhaps Lo:i Li"V dj.kkÚ;k vkgsr- lcc izfroknhal
vk.k[kh uO;kus Lora= uksVhlk ns.;kph dks.krhgh vko';drk ukgh-Þ
(Emphasis added)
Thus, it is clear that what is contended by the Plaintiff is that
earlier notices dated 14th April 1998 and 19th December 1998
specify the nature of the Suit and the reliefs sought and therefore
it is not necessary to issue separate notice under Section 80 of
CPC and also under the Village Panchayats Act.
7. It appears that, the following objection is raised by the
Superintendent, Civil Court, Senior Division, Sindhudurg at Oros on
28th March 2006:
"(i) In this suit Govt. of Mah. is a party. Notice u/s. 80 CPC is
not given though this suit is filed with new prayer than the
previous rejected suit.
(ii) From which date compensation is claimed is not clear in
prayer (b) of para 9 of the plaint.
54-SA-533-2019.doc
Necessary orders regarding numbering the suit may
pleased be passed."
8. The said objection is raised by the Registry of the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Oros. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division
passed Order on 29th March 2006 directing the Plaintiff to comply with
the said objection within 4 days. Thereafter, on 20th June 2006, the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sindhudurg at Oros passed the
following Order:
"Though sufficient opportunity is given to the Plaintiff to
comply office objection, he failed to comply the same. Hence
plaint is rejected under O VII R 11(d) of C.P.C."
Thus, what the Court has said that although sufficient
opportunities have been granted to the Plaintiff, the objection is
not complied with and therefore the plaint has been rejected by
exercising power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.
9. However, perusal of the plaint clearly shows that it is the
contention raised by the Plaintiff that notice under Section 80 of CPC is
not required to be issued. For the said contention reasons are given. The
second objection is concerning from which date the compensation is
claimed is not clarified in prayer clause (b). All these objections are
concerning the merits of the matter and in any case the same are
required to be decided.
10. Thus, it is clear that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Oros
54-SA-533-2019.doc
has committed grave illegality and irregularity in rejecting the plaint by
exercising power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.
11. Accordingly, Order dated 20th June 2006 passed by the learned
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sindhudurg at Oros as confirmed by the
learned District Judge-1, Sindhudurg at Oros by the Judgment and
Decree dated 30th September 2014 passed in Regular Civil Appeal
No.136 of 2010 is quashed and set aside.
12. Accordingly, plaint dated 28th March 2006 is restored to the file
of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Oros.
13. The Appellant and Respondents shall remain present before the
concerned Court on 15th September 2025. The concerned Court
thereafter to proceed with the said Suit in accordance with law.
14. It is clarified that all contentions on merits are expressly kept
open.
15. It is further clarified that the Respondents are at liberty to file an
appropriate application seeking relief including the relief under Order
VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. If such application is filed, the learned Trial
Court shall decide the same on its own merits by giving opportunity to
all the parties.
16. In view of disposal of the Second Appeal, nothing survives in the
Civil Application and the same is also disposed of.
17. It is clarified that, any ad-interim order, if operating, shall stand
54-SA-533-2019.doc
vacated forthwith.
18. Liberty is granted to the Appellant/Plaintiff to file appropriate
application before the learned Trial Court seeking interim relief. If such
application is filed, the same be decided on merits.
19. Accordingly, Second Appeal is disposed of in above terms with no
order as to costs.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
