Rajasthan High Court
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Nayabas vs Lal Singh S/O Shri Bhol Singh on 10 December, 2021
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 100/2021
1. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Nayabas, Tehsil Bansur,
District Alwar (Raj.)
2. Prakash Chandra Alias P.c. Rawat Alias Raja Bhaiya S/o
Leelaram, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village
Mandi, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Lal Singh S/o Shri Bhol Singh, Resident Of Lalpura, Tehsil
Bansur, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Ratnawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
10/12/2021
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated
19.06.2021, whereby the petitioners application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
It appears from the record that the respondent-plaintiff filed
a civil suit for permanent injunction against the Sarpanch Gram
Panchayat, Nayabas, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar and one Prakash
Chandra to restrain the petitioners that they may not dispossess
the plaintiff from the suit property and may not forcefully enter
into the peaceful possession. This suit has been filed on
10.06.2021 and in para No. 7 of the plaint, it has been mentioned
that prior to filing the suit, a legal notice dated 03.06.2021 was
(2 of 3) [CR-100/2021]
served upon the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nayabas and
Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Nayabas.
The petitioners, after receiving of the notice of the plaint,
filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, raising an
objection that since the present suit has been filed against Gram
Panchayat, Nayabas, as per Section 109 of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, two months notice is mandatory before
filing of any suit, hence, the suit is liable to be rejected within the
scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Learned Trial Court, vide impugned order has not given any
findings on the requirement of notice under Section 109 of the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 before filing of this suit,
however, the findings have been given that the objection
regarding accrual of cause of action and others as raised by the
petitioners are subject matter of trial and shall be adjudicated
after recording evidence of both the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly,
two months notice prior to filing of the suit has not been given by
the respondent, which is well clear by perusal of the plaint itself.
In para No. 7 of the plaint, respondent-plaintiff admits that legal
notice was given on 03.06.2021 and the present suit for
permanent injunction has been filed on 10.06.2021. Therefore,
due to non-compliance of Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati
Raj Act, 1994, the suit should be rejected. Learned counsel for the
petitioners placed reliance on the judgment passed in SB Civil
Revision Petition No. 794/1997 decided on 15.12.1997 titled as
Mewa Ram v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. followed by judgment
passed in SB Civil First Appeal No. 394/2011 decided on
19.07.2012 titled as Baldev Singh v. Smt. Guddi Devi & Ors. and
(3 of 3) [CR-100/2021]
contended that due to non-completion of two months period of
notice dated 03.06.2021, there is clear non-compliance of Section
109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and thus, the suit
is liable to be rejected.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
material made available on record.
In the judgment of Mewa Ram (supra), the Trial Court
framed specific issue regarding the issuance of notice to the Gram
Panchayat. After framing the issues and recording of evidence of
both the parties, the issue No. 2 was decided as preliminary issue.
It is clear that in the judgment of Mewa Ram (supra), plaint was
not rejected within the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. This Court is
of opinion that though the respondent-plaintiff has filed the
present civil suit before expiry of period of two months from the
notice dated 03.06.2021, however, this fact itself does not invoke
the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to treat the present suit as
barred by law. In the case of Mewa Ram (supra), such objection
was dealt with after framing of the issue and recording of evidence
of both the parties.
In view of above, the revision petition is devoid of merits.
The objection raised by the petitioner-defendants shall be
considered by the Trial Court after framing of issues and recording
of evidence of both the parties during the course of trial.
With the above observation, the revision petition is disposed
of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAHIL SONI/35
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
