9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . GURU RAJ REDDY AND ORS. VERSUS P. NEERADHA REDDY AND ORS. [ 2015 (2) TMI 1363 - SUPREME COURT ], the rejection of plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the Court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When a Plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application Under Order VII Rule 11. The City Civil Court as well as the High Court refused to follow the procedure prescribed by Section 85-A of the Act, on the short ground that the same could be invoked only in cases where the issues covered by the Act have not already been settled, decided or dealt with by an authority competent under the Act to do so. Supporting the view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court, it is contended by Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, learned Counsel for some of the contesting Respondents that as against the orders passed Under Section 32-G and 32-M, an alternativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 216, Hissa No. 4-A, bearing C.T.S. No. 1879 of village Dahisar Taluka Borivali, Bombay Suburban District is null and void inoperative in law and not binding upon the Plaintiffs; (c) It be further declared that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and person claiming through and under the said Defendants are trespassers on the suit land bearing Survey No. 216, Hissa No. 4-A, bearing C.T.S. No. 1879 of Village Dahisar Taluka Borivali, Bombay suburban District; (d) The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be jointly and severally ordered and decreed to hand over to the Plaintiffs and/or to Defendant No. 3 the Court Receiver, Vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit land Viz., Survey No. 216, Hissa No. 4-A bearing C.T.S. No. 1879 of village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, Bombay suburban district; (e) The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiffs and/or Defendant No. 3, the Court Receiver, such mesne profits as may be determined upon inquiry Under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession of the suit land, bearing Survey No. 216 Hissa No. 4-A, bearing C.T.S. No. 1879 of Dahisar, Village Taluka, Borivali. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 28.11.1963 and the sale certificate issued Under Section 32M was dated 23.07.1954, but the suit being S.C. suit No. 2343 of 1987 was filed in March-1987, the second Defendant in the suit which is a Cooperative Society, took out a notice of motion for the rejection of the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d) Code of Civil Procedure. It is relevant to note that this notice of motion was taken out, by the second Defendant, only in the year 2003, that is after 16 years of the institution of the suit. 7. The rejection of plaint was sought primarily on two grounds, namely, (a) that the suit filed in the year 1987 challenging the action of the competent authorities under the Act carried out way back in 1963 and 1964 was hopelessly barred by limitation; and (b) that in any case Section 85 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court. 8. The City Civil Court Bombay, by an Order dated 16.04.2012 allowed the notice of motion and rejected the plaint on both the grounds raised by the second Defendant. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the Plaintiffs filed a regular appeal in First appeal No. 948 of 2012. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by a judgment and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application Under Order VII Rule 11. 14. Again as pointed out by a three member bench of this Court in Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar (2018) 6 SCC 422, the plea regarding the date on which the Plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential facts, is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. It becomes a triable issue and hence the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold. 15. Referring to a few averments contained in the plaint, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Appellants had constructive notice of the proceedings Under Section 32-G and the sale certificate issued Under Section 32-M. In support of such a plea, the learned Counsel relies upon the following decisions, Ram Niwas (Dead) v. Bano (Smt.) and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 685; Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited and Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 601; Murlidhar Bapuji Valve v. Yallappa Lalu Chaugule; Parvathathammal v. Sivasankara Bhattar and Ors. 16. But a Defendant in a suit cannot pick up a few sentences here and there from the plaint and contend that the Plaintiffs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Plaintiffs had real or constructive notice of the proceedings by virtue of such a public notice. It is not even known whether a public notice was ever published. Therefore, the plea of constructive notice raised with a view to sustain the plea of limitation cannot be accepted at the stage of dealing with an application for rejection of plaint. 20. Insofar as the bar of the jurisdiction Under Section 85 is concerned, the Act contains a very strange provision, in Section 85-A, the like of which is not found in many other statutes which contain provisions barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. It may be useful to extract Section 85 and 85A of the Act as follows: 85. Bar of jurisdiction (1) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question [(including a question, whether a person is or was at any time in the past a tenant and whether any such tenant is or should be deemed to have purchased from his landlord the land held by him)] which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal, a Manager, the Collector or the [Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal] in appeal or revision or the [Maharashtr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Court staying further proceedings in the suit, referring the issues for the adjudication of the competent authority under the Act and disposing of the suit after receipt of a decision from the competent authority, would not arise. 24. The City Civil Court as well as the High Court refused to follow the procedure prescribed by Section 85-A of the Act, on the short ground that the same could be invoked only in cases where the issues covered by the Act have not already been settled, decided or dealt with by an authority competent under the Act to do so. Supporting the view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court, it is contended by Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, learned Counsel for some of the contesting Respondents that as against the orders passed Under Section 32-G and 32-M, an alternative remedy of appeal is provided under Clauses (mb) and (n) of Sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act. The Collector is the appellate authority Under Section 74. Under Section 76-A, the Collector even has suo motu power of revision, even in cases where no appeal has been filed. Section 79 of the Act prescribes a period of 60 days as the limitation for filing an appeal or revision. Therefore, it is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
