Shri Agarwal Vaishya Samaj Samiti vs Geejgrah Vihar Vikas Samiti And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5379 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:25539]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 154/2015

Shri Agarwal Vaishya Samaj Samiti, Shri Agrasen Bhawan,
Geejgarh        Vihar,   Hawa       Sadak,       Jaipur      through    Its   present
Secretary Mr. Dwarka, aged about 58 years,                           R/o 129, Devi
Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur.
                              ----Defendant/Applicant/Revision-Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       Geejgarh Vihar Vikas Samiti (Registration No. 241/92/93)
         46,     Geejgarh      Vihar      Colony,       Hawasadad,       Jaipur,   46,
         Geejgarh Vihar Colony, Jaipur Rajasthan.
                  ..........Plaintiff/Non-Applicant/Contesting Respondent

2. The Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Through Its Mayor, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Pandit Deendayal Bhawan, Near Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur

3. The Jaipur Vikas Pradhikarak Through Its Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Pandit Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Rajasthan.

.......Defendant/Resondents

4. Shri Agrawal Vaishya Samaj Samiti Trust, Agrasen Bhawan, Geejgarh Vihar, Hawasdak, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Agarsen Bhawan, Geejgarh Vihar Hawa Sadak, Jaipur

----Defendant-Proforma-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta Mr. Ajit Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

27/09/2023

This revision petition, which is reported to be time barred by

127 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, 1963.

[2023:RJ-JP:25539] (2 of 3) [CR-154/2015]

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is

allowed. The delay in preferring the revision petition is condoned.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

13.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") in Civil

Suit No.522/2008 whereby, an application filed by the

petitioner/defendant no.1 (for brevity, "the defendant no.1")

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent

no.1/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") filed a suit for permanent

injunction against the defendant no.1 and the respondents no.2 to

4 alleging therein that the defendant no.1 wants to raise

construction on the subject land against the Building Bye-Laws

and without seeking prior permission from the competent

authority. It was further alleged that the building already existing

on the subject land is being used by the defendant no.1 for

marriage and other ceremonies which causes nuisance to the local

residents. Therefore, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

Therein, the defendant no.1 filed an application under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC raising objection as to maintainability of the suit in

view of the provisions of Sections 99 & 83 of the Jaipur

Development Authority Act, 1982 (for brevity, "the Act of 1982").

The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide

order dated 13.02.2015, impugned herein.

Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the

defendant no.1 submits that in view of provisions contained in the

Act of 1982, the suit is not maintainable in the civil Court as the

jurisdiction to try it lies with the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur

[2023:RJ-JP:25539] (3 of 3) [CR-154/2015]

Development Authority. He, therefore, prays that the civil revision

petition be allowed, the order dated 13.02.2015 be quashed and

set aside and the plaint be rejected.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that

the suit is not hit by the provisions of Sections 99 & 83 of the Act

of 1982. He submits that in addition to the prayer seeking

injunction against the defendant no.1 not to raise construction

without seeking prior permission from the competent authority,

there is another prayer for a decree for restraining the respondent

no.1 from causing nuisance which cannot be granted by the

learned Tribunal established under Section 83 of the Act of 1982.

He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

Heard. Considered.

Indisputably, in the suit, in addition to the prayer for a

decree of injunction restraining the defendant no.1 not to raise

construction without seeking prior permission of the competent

authority, it is further prayed that the respondent no.1 may be

restrained from causing nuisance, a relief, which cannot be

granted by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of

the Act of 1982.

In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

learned trial Court did not err in dismissing the application filed by

the defendant no.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of

merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/09

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)