Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (4) TMI 1297 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Legality and perversity of the impugned order.
2. Applicability of Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC.
3. Compliance with Section 52-A of the Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965 (GID Act).
4. Easement of necessity and easement by grant.
5. Disputed questions of fact and law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Perversity of the Impugned Order:
The core issue for determination is whether the impugned order is "so illegal and perverse as to call for interference." The revision application challenges the order dated 3.3.2011 by the Ad hoc District Judge-2, North Goa, Panaji, which rejected the petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC.

2. Applicability of Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC:
The petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, later prosecuted solely under Rule 11(d). The contention was that the suit was barred by law due to non-compliance with Section 52-A of the GID Act. The Ad hoc District Judge dismissed this application, reasoning that the court had impliedly waived the notice requirement under Section 52-A by contesting the suit on merits.

3. Compliance with Section 52-A of the GID Act:
The petitioner argued that Section 52-A of the GID Act mandates a two-month prior notice before instituting a suit, which was not complied with, thus barring the suit. The respondent countered that the court's waiver of notice under Section 80 of CPC impliedly waived the notice under Section 52-A of the GID Act. However, the court found that Section 80 CPC and Section 52-A GID Act are not analogous, and there can be no deemed waiver of the notice required under Section 52-A. The Ad hoc District Judge erred in presuming a deemed waiver and in stating that contesting the suit on merits implied waiver of notice.

4. Easement of Necessity and Easement by Grant:
Respondent No. 1 claimed an easement of necessity and by grant over a road providing access to their property, which was allegedly blocked by the petitioner. The petitioner denied these claims, asserting that any construction was within their property and rights under the GID Act. The court noted that the dispute over the easement and the petitioner's actions involves factual determinations that cannot be resolved solely on the pleadings.

5. Disputed Questions of Fact and Law:
The court emphasized that while deciding an application under Rule 11(d), Order 7 CPC, it cannot delve into disputed questions of fact or law. The respondent's claims of mala fide intentions and obstruction by the petitioner create a factual dispute. The court concluded that the statements in the plaint do not unequivocally show that the suit is barred by law, and thus, the plaint could not be rejected under Rule 11(d), Order 7 of CPC.

Conclusion:
The court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the Civil Revision Application, discharging the rule with no order as to costs. The court reiterated that compliance with Section 52-A of the GID Act is mandatory only when the act in question is done in pursuance of or in exercise of the provisions of the GID Act.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates