Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Neeta Kapoor vs Smt. Gayatri Devi (2024:Rj-Jd:24931) on 30 May, 2024
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2024:RJ-JD:24931]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 106/2024
Neeta Kapoor W/o Late Arun Kapoor, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Rajasthan Nursing Home, Near K.G. Complex, Industrial Area,
Rani Bazar, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Gayatri Devi W/o Rajkumar Sharma, R/o Behind
Chopra Katla, Near K.g. Complex, Industrial Area, Rani
Bazar, Bikaner.
2. Nagar Nigam Bikaner, Through Commissioner, Nagar
Nigam, Bikaner.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Distt. Collector, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishank Madhan.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
30/05/2024
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 03.05.2024 passed in
Civil Suit No. 99/2024 whereby Learned Trial Court has refused to
reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Respondent No. 1
Gayatri Devi had filed the aforesaid suit wherein Municipal
Corporation, Bikaner is one of the defendant i.e. defendant No. 2.
The plaintiff stated that just by the side of her house, defendant
No. 1 (petitioner herein) was making construction of a multistory
building. She be restrained from opening any window etc. towards
the house of the plaintiff and if any such construction has been
made towards the house of plaintiff then the same should be
removed.
[2024:RJ-JD:24931] (2 of 3) [CR-106/2024]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that remedy to
the plaintiff was before the competent authorities under Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 2009 vide Section 194(h). Therefore, before
availing the remedy before a civil court, the plaintiff should have
availed statutory remedy. The provision further stipulates that if
anyone is still aggrieved by the order of the competent authority
under the Municipal Act there is provision for appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two
judgments; one is of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Ranveer Bose
& Anr. Vs. Anita Das & Ors. (non-reportable) and another is of the
Rajasthan High Court in Rohit Singh Vs. Vishambhar Dayal Shukla
in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 57/2013.
3. It is worth to notice that under Rajasthan Municipalities Act,
2009 there is no specific bar of the jurisdiction of civil court akin
to Section 99 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982.
4. Since Section 99 of Jaipur Development Authority Act
specifically bars cognizance by a Civil Court unless the
issue/remedy which is required, under the Act, to be decided by
the authority mentioned under the Act is availed of. In Rohit Singh
case (supra), a Bench of this Court had considered Section 99 of
the Act and held that the plaint was fit to be rejected under Order
VII Rule 11(d) CPC as suit was specifically barred by the statute.
The said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances
of this case.
5. In Dr. Ranveer Bose case, a writ petition was filed before the
High Court of Calcutta ventilating identical grievance and praying
relief in the nature of issuance of mandamus. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that if the private respondent before the
[2024:RJ-JD:24931] (3 of 3) [CR-106/2024]
Supreme Court was aggrieved of the irregularity committed, if
any, in the construction raised by the appellants should have
approached the municipal authorities and if no proper response
was forthcoming, then the Civil Court was appropriate forum for
ventilating the grievance of the nature which was raised before the
writ court. Evidently, the Court was considering issue of
alternative remedy before approaching the writ Court.
6. In this matter municipality is already a party. The
Municipality would have opportunity to file written statement
which may contain action taken in the matter of grievance of the
plaintiff. There is no bar under the Municipal Act against directly
approaching Civil Court for redressal of grievance which can be
agitated before the authority as well, therefore, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
9-Sumer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
