Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 216 (RAJ)

Gaurishankar v. Arun Nagranjan

2021-01-27

ARUN BHANSALI

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, has been rejected. 2. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit under Order I, Rule 8 CPC, inter alia, making several allegations and claiming the following reliefs:- 3. The petitioners filed the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC with the following averments:- 4. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the trial court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the defendants have failed to point out any provision in law, which would bar the jurisdiction of the civil court and, consequently, rejected the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to make submissions that as the allegations in the plaint pertained to the violation of the permission for construction granted by the Urban Improvement Trust, the plaintiffs had efficacious remedy under various provisions under the Urban Improvement Act, 1959 ('the Act') and, therefore, the suit was not barred. 6. Reliance was placed on provisions of Sections 90, 90-A, 91 and 91-A of the Act to indicate the available remedies. Further reference was made to provisions of Section 97 of the Act to indicate that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred and it was prayed that the order impugned passed by the trial court be set aside and the plaint be rejected. 7. Reliance was also placed on judgment in Rohit Singh v. Vishambhar Dayal Shukia : 2014(1) DNJ (Raj.) 398; Jaidev Singh Shekhawat v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 10577/2020, decided on 20.10.2020 and Sitaram Sakharam Keluskar v. Dayaram Gulzarilal Deval: 2014(2) CCC 125 (Bombay). 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. 9. A bare perusal of the plaint indicates that it was filed under provisions of Order I, Rule 8 CPC and contains various allegations against the defendants, and the failure on part of the authorities to take action against the defendants No. 1 to 5. 9. A bare perusal of the plaint indicates that it was filed under provisions of Order I, Rule 8 CPC and contains various allegations against the defendants, and the failure on part of the authorities to take action against the defendants No. 1 to 5. In the relief clause as quoted hereinbefore, it was claimed that the defendants No. 1 to 5 be restrained from constructing/opening the commercial premises/hospital and the defendants No. 6 and 7 i.e. UIT and State be directed by way of permanent injunction not to grant permission to the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 for opening the hospital and operate the same. Further prayers were made seeking demolition of various parts of the construction. 10. The application filed by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC as quoted hereinbefore was most cursory and did not contain any basis for seeking dismissal of the plaint at the threshold under provisions of Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC much less to indicate as to under which provision of law, the plaint/suit was barred. 11. The trial court, as noticed hereinbefore by observing that the petitioners having failed to indicate the provision under which the plaint was barred, rejected the application. The various reliefs, which have been claimed includes a permanent injunction against the respondents No. 6 and 7 from granting the permission. The various provisions pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners i.e. Sections 90, 90-A, 91 and 91-A of the Act, don't deal with the said aspect, wherein a party can seek injunction from the authorities themselves from granting the permission and as such it cannot be said that the plaintiffs had any efficacious remedy as sought to be alleged in the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, though cursory. 12. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners based on provisions of Section 97 of the Act to claim that the suit is barred, reads as under:- "97. Indemnity of Trust, etc. - No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be maintainable against the Trust, or any Trustee, or any officer or servant of the Trust, or any person acting under the direction of the Trust or the Chairman, or any officer or servant of the Trust in respect of anything lawfully and in good faith and with due care and attention done under this Act." 13. A perusal of the provision would indicate that the same pertains to the indemnity of the Trust and its officers in case they take any action lawfully and in good faith, qua the said aspect i.e. the suit against the authorities, the same has been barred. 14. The provision in no manner bars suits of all nature against the Trust, as claimed by the petitioners. As such the reliance placed on the provisions of Section 97 of the Act is wholly misplaced. 15. So far as the judgment in the case of Rohit Singh (supra) is concerned, the said case pertained to suit filed in relation to jurisdiction of the Jaipur Development Authority and it was found that the provisions of Section 99 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, the suit was barred as noticed hereinbefore, no provisions have been cited to indicate any bar of filing the suit/plaint under the Act. 16. The judgment in the case of Jaidev Singh Shekhawat (supra) pertains to writ jurisdiction, wherein the Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to approach the authorities, the judgment in the case of non-exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be used for claiming that the suit before the civil court would be barred. 17. The judgment in the case of Sitaram Sakharam Keluskar (supra) was pertaining to grant of mandatory injunction in an appeal arising from the grant of injunction by the trial court while deciding the suit. 18. The stage of any decree having been passed by the trial court has not arrived so far. The present stage is exercise of powers under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. As such none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners has any application to the facts of the present case. 19. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the revision petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.