1999 (9) TMI 992 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Compliance with Order VII, Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure for suit decree
2. Reliance on demarcation report in absence of map
3. Impleading State of M.P under Order 1, Rule 3-B of Code of Civil Procedure

Compliance with Order VII, Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure for suit decree:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit for possession of agricultural land without specifying the disputed portion adequately. The trial Court dismissed the suit due to non-compliance with Order VII, Rule 3, stating that without a clear identification of the land, no decree could be passed. However, the first Appellate Court decreed the suit. The key issue was whether the suit could be decreed without specific pleadings under Order VII, Rule 3. The Court referred to precedents emphasizing the need for accurate identification of the disputed property, stating that the plaintiff must provide a description sufficient for identification. The Court highlighted the importance of specifying boundaries or using a map to identify the property to determine ownership and any encroachments accurately.

Reliance on demarcation report in absence of map:
The plaintiff failed to prove the encroachment with specific details in the plaint or during the trial. The lower Appellate Court erred in relying on a demarcation document not proven by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's deposition lacked clarity on the encroached portion, and no map was provided. The Court emphasized that without proper specifications, any decree passed would be unworkable under the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower Appellate Court's decision to reverse the judgment based on insufficient details was deemed incorrect, and the original trial Court's findings were upheld.

Impleading State of M.P under Order 1, Rule 3-B of Code of Civil Procedure:
The omission to implead the State of M.P as a party was considered an irregularity, curable under the law. The Court cited a Division Bench decision to support this view. The plaintiff later moved an application to implead the State of M.P as a party. Despite this irregularity, the Court concluded that the suit could not be decreed due to the lack of specific details and map of the disputed land. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the lower Appellate Court's judgment was set aside, and the plaint was rejected.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the importance of complying with procedural requirements, such as providing specific details and maps in civil suits involving property disputes to ensure accurate identification and fair adjudication.