Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 439 (MP)

Gyan Singh v. State of M. P.

2004-05-07

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court holding the civil suit to be not maintainable, the plaintiff has knocked the door of this Court by preferring an appeal under Section 100 of CPC. ( 2. ) NO exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, suffice it to say that a suit under Section 11 (5) of M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (in short the Act) was filed by the plaintiff. Averments of the plaint were denied by the defendants by filing their separate written statement. The learned Trial Judge after framing issues and recording the evidence came to hold that there is merit in the case of the plaintiff and eventually decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred by the State of M. P. , before First Appellate Court which was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, this appeal. ( 3. ) THIS appeal was admitted on 10-4-1997 on the following substantial questions of law :- ( 1) Whether, the First Appellate Court was right in holding that the suit under Section 11 (5) of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 filed by the plaintiff against the State was not maintainable before the Civil Court ? (2) Whether, while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court proper reasonings were assigned by the First Appellate Court ? ( 4. ) IT has been vehemently contended by Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Counsel for the appellant that the approach of learned Ist Appellate Court is ex-fade contrary to law. He has drawn my attention to Section 11 of the Act and placed emphasis on Sub-section (5) of the said Act. According to learned Counsel, plaintiff on 6-5-1985 filed civil suit against the order dated 13th February, 1985 passed by the competent authority and therefore, the suit was maintainable and the learned Ist Appellate Court committed substantial error of law in dismissing the same. It has been put forth by him that the case of State of M. P. v. Gyarsi Ram, 1993 RN 113, is not at all applicable in the present case. It has been put forth by him that the case of State of M. P. v. Gyarsi Ram, 1993 RN 113, is not at all applicable in the present case. 4-A. Combatting the aforesaid submission of learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, it has been argued by Shri S. S. Bansal, learned Govt. Advocate that the learned Ist Appellate Court did not commit any error in dismissing the suit holding it to be not maintainable. ( 5. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 6. ) BEFORE dealing with the rival contention of learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to rewrite Sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act, which reads as under :- " (5) The order of the competent authority under Sub-section (4) shall not be subject to appeal or revision but any party may, within three months from the date of such order institute a suit in the Civil Court to have the order set aside, and the decision of such Court shall be binding on the competent authority, but subject to the result of such suit if any, the order to the competent authority shall be final and conclusive. " In the present case, it has not been disputed by learned Counsel for the respondent that the order of competent authority was passed on 13-2-1985 and the civil suit was filed on 6-5-1985. Thus, in view of Sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the said Act, the civil suit was maintainable. Shri Praveen Newaskar in his usual vehemence placed heavy reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vijaya Singh v. Competent Authority (Sub-Divisional Officer), Tarana, 1977 JLJ 401 , and submitted that the civil suit is maintainable. I am in complete agreement with the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant. Fate of this case has been decided by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vijaya Singh (supra ). Thus, I have no option but to follow the verdict of the Full Bench and to allow the appeal. ( 7. ) IN the result, appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs. Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to it for deciding the case on merits. Thus, I have no option but to follow the verdict of the Full Bench and to allow the appeal. ( 7. ) IN the result, appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs. Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to it for deciding the case on merits. Counsel fee Rs. 1000/- if pre-certified.