CLR/70/2020
2023 Latest Caselaw 3047 UK

             Office Notes,
                reports,
               orders or
             proceedings
SL.
      Date   or directions                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                  and
              Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures
                             CLR No. 70 of 2020
                             Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Mr. S.K. Mandal, counsel for the revisionists. Mr. Naitik Bhatt, proxy counsel for Mr. Piyush Garg, counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2.

2. This revision is preferred against order dated 22.02.2020 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Dehradun passed in Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2012, whereby the Appellate Court has transferred the said appeal to the statutory authority.

3. Counsel for the revisionists would submit that the Civil Suit No. 250 of 2008 was filed by the revisionist before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun against the respondent nos.1 & 2/defendants to restrain them from discharging the sewage water in the property of the revisionists/plaintiffs; that, the trial court has dismissed the said suit vide judgment and order dated 17.03.2012; that, feeling aggrieved by the same, the revisionist has filed the civil appeal before the court of District Judge, Dehradun; that, the First Appellate Court vide order dated 22.02.2020 disposed of the said appeal with the finding that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 37-A of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act, 1973 and transferred the said appeal to the statutory authority.

Counsel for the revisionist would further submit that no relief is claimed against the respondent no.3, and even he was not arrayed as party in the original suit; that once the civil court has passed the final judgment, the appeal could not have been transferred to any statutory body in any Act, therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

4. Counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 would vehemently oppose the submission made by counsel for the revisionist by submitting that present revision is not maintainable under Section 37-A of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act, 1973.

5. Now the important question before the Court is that once the civil suit is filed in a Civil Court of lowest jurisdiction and the same is decided then can First Appellate Court be justified in observing that the suit is not maintainable and in transferring the case to statutory authority under Section 37 of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act, 1973.

6. Admit the revision.

7. Lower Court Record be summoned.

8. Put up on 27.03.2024.

9. Meanwhile, the proceedings before the statutory body under Section 37 of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act, 1973 whereby the Appellate Court has transferred the appeal to the statutory authority shall remain stayed.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 10.10.2023 Mamta