Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by the Goa Pollution Control Board (Applicant/Defendant No.6) against an order of the District Judge-2, Panaji at Ponda, rejecting its application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 22/2018. The suit was filed by Respondent No.8, an Honorary Animal Welfare Officer, seeking permanent injunction against the Board and other defendants from issuing permissions, licences, etc. to the Goa Meat Complex (Defendant Nos.2 and 3) for operating a meat processing plant. The Board argued that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction due to Section 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 58 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which bar civil suits in matters that the appellate authority under those Acts can determine. The Board also contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that no cause of action was disclosed against it. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the bar under the Acts applies only to matters within the appellate authority's jurisdiction, and the suit for injunction against the Board for issuing permissions does not fall within that ambit. The High Court, after hearing all parties, upheld the Trial Court's order. It held that the plaint must be read as a whole and that the bar under Section 46 of the Air Act and Section 58 of the Water Act is limited to matters which the appellate authority is empowered to determine. The suit for injunction against the Board for issuing permissions/licences is not such a matter. The court also noted that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the application for rejection was rightly rejected. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Bar of Jurisdiction - The court considered whether the plaint could be rejected qua Defendant No.6 (Goa Pollution Control Board) on the ground that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction due to Section 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 58 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The court held that the bar under these sections applies only to matters which the appellate authority under the Acts is empowered to determine, and the suit for injunction against the Board for issuing permissions/licences does not fall within such matters. The plaint disclosed a cause of action and the application for rejection was rightly rejected. (Paras 6-14)
B) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 - Scope - The court reiterated that for rejection of plaint, the court must look only at the plaint and the documents annexed thereto, and not at the defence. The plaint must be read as a whole to see if it discloses a cause of action. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether plaint could be rejected qua Defendant No.6 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on the ground of bar of jurisdiction under Section 46 of Air Act and Section 58 of Water Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the Trial Court's order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Section 46 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981
- Section 58 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974
- Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court
- Rejection of plaint qua one defendant
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 278
Civil Revision Application No.49 of 2019 with Civil Application No.227 of 2019
Joaquim Godinho, J.A. Lobo, Manish Salkar, D. Zaveri, M. Mahamal
Goa Pollution Control Board
Government of Goa, Goa Meat Complex, Goa Meat Complex Ltd. (Usgao plant), Directorate of Foods and Drugs Administration, Inspector of Factories and Boilers, Directorate of Animal Husbandry And Veterinary Services, Veterinary Officer, Miss. Anjali Anand
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application against order rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint.
Remedy Sought
Applicant (Goa Pollution Control Board) sought rejection of plaint in Civil Suit No.22/2018 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on ground of bar of jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
Applicant contended that Civil Court lacked jurisdiction due to Section 46 of Air Act and Section 58 of Water Act, and that no cause of action was disclosed against it.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (District Judge-2, Panaji at Ponda) rejected the application vide order dated 26.09.2019.
Issues
Whether the plaint could be rejected qua Defendant No.6 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of bar of jurisdiction under Section 46 of Air Act and Section 58 of Water Act.
Whether the suit for injunction against the Board for issuing permissions/licences is barred by the said sections.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that Section 46 of Air Act and Section 58 of Water Act bar civil court jurisdiction in matters which the appellate authority under those Acts can determine, and the suit for injunction against the Board falls within such matters.
Respondent No.8 argued that the bar under the Acts is limited to matters within the appellate authority's jurisdiction, and the suit for injunction does not fall within that ambit; the plaint discloses a cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi
The bar under Section 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 58 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 applies only to matters which the appellate authority under the said Acts is empowered to determine. A suit for permanent injunction against the Board for issuing permissions/licences does not fall within such matters. Therefore, the Civil Court has jurisdiction, and the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The short question which cropped up in the present revision is whether plaint could be rejected qua Defendant No.6 under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC.
Section 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 58 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 specifically bars jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which an appellate authority constituted under the said Acts is empowered by or under the said Act to determine.
The bar under Section 46 of the Air Act and Section 58 of the Water Act is limited to matters which the appellate authority is empowered to determine. The suit for injunction against the Board for issuing permissions/licences is not such a matter.
Procedural History
Civil Suit No.22/2018 was filed by Respondent No.8 before the District Court at Panaji, which was allotted to District Judge-2, Panaji sitting at Ponda. The Applicant (Defendant No.6) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and raised preliminary objection to jurisdiction. The Trial Court rejected the application on 26.09.2019. The Applicant filed the present Civil Revision Application against that order. The High Court admitted the revision and heard it finally with consent.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 7 Rule 11
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: Section 46
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Section 58
