Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original plaintiffs, filed Regular Civil Suit No.185 of 2015 challenging an order of regularization dated 12.12.2006 passed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Development (Regulation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001. The respondents, including Nagpur Improvement Trust and a cooperative housing society, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 18 of the said Act. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the bar under Section 18 did not apply. The lower appellate court reversed this decision and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding the maintainability of the suit in light of the jurisdictional bar. The court analyzed Section 18 of the Act, which expressly bars civil court jurisdiction in matters relating to regularization under the Act. The court held that the suit was clearly barred by law and the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower appellate court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Jurisdictional Bar - Suit challenging regularization order under Section 3 of Maharashtra Gunthewari Development Act, 2001 - Section 18 of the Act bars civil court jurisdiction - Held that the plaint is liable to be rejected as the suit is barred by law (Paras 1-12).
B) Land Law - Maharashtra Gunthewari Development Act, 2001 - Section 18 - Bar of Jurisdiction - Regularization Order - The Act provides a complete mechanism for regularization and any challenge to such order must be before the authorities under the Act, not civil court - Held that the bar under Section 18 is clear and unambiguous (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order of regularization passed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Development (Regulation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001 in view of the bar under Section 18 of the said Act.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The order of the lower appellate court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is upheld.
Law Points
- Civil court jurisdiction barred by Section 18 of Maharashtra Gunthewari Development Act
- 2001
- Suit challenging regularization order under Section 3 of the Act not maintainable
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC applicable for rejection of plaint
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 206
Second Appeal No.30 of 2016
Shri P.A. Abhyankar for Appellants, Shri J.B. Kasat for Respondent Nos.1 & 2, Shri Avinash Gharote for Respondent No.3
Sunderlal s/o Ramcharan Aamghe and others
Nagpur Improvement Trust and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against dismissal of regular civil appeal which upheld rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the order of the lower appellate court and restore the suit challenging regularization order.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, but the lower appellate court reversed it and dismissed the appeal, leading to the second appeal.
Previous Decisions
Trial court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC; lower appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
Issues
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order of regularization passed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Development Act, 2001 in view of the bar under Section 18 of the said Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the bar under Section 18 does not apply as the suit is for declaration and injunction.
Respondents contended that Section 18 expressly bars civil court jurisdiction in matters relating to regularization under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 18 of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Development (Regulation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001 creates an express bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any order passed under the Act. Therefore, a suit challenging a regularization order under Section 3 of the Act is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial court rejected an application under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in Regular Civil Suit No.185 of 2015 holding that in view of the bar created under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Development (Regulation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit challenging the order of regularization dated 12.12.2006 passed in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 of the said Act.
The lower Appellate Court has dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No.263 of 2015 by its judgment and order dated 05.10.2015.
Procedural History
The trial court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC in Regular Civil Suit No.185 of 2015. The respondents appealed to the lower appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No.263 of 2015, which was allowed on 05.10.2015, dismissing the suit. The appellants then filed Second Appeal No.30 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 26.08.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11(d)
- Maharashtra Gunthewari Development (Regulation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001: Section 3, Section 18
