Shri. Rajeev Arun Shah & Ors. v. Sagar Group of Bungalows & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Revision Application is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Cantonments Act, 2006 s. 250
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Mr. Ingale, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the impugned order mainly deals with only one ground raised in the application by the applicants i.e. bar under Section 339 of the said Act. It does not deal in detail the objection raised…
Judgment
Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * None for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 5th AUGUST, 2010. P.C. :-
This Revision Application challenges the order dated 30th December, 2009 by which the Court of II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune rejected the application filed by the applicants for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code.
The application for rejection of the plaint was made on two grounds, firstly, that the suit is barred in view of Section 250 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and * 2 * CRA-269/2010 secondly, that the applicants were not served with the notice under Section 339 of the said Act required to be given prior to filing of the suit.
Section 339 of the said Act bars a suit against any member of a board or any officer or employee of a board. The applicants do not claim to be any of such person. Hence, any reliance upon Section 339 is clearly misplaced.
As regards the second objection based upon the provision of Section 250, the language of this provision also clearly shows that the same is not attracted to the facts of the case. The provision reads as follows :
S.250. Courts not to entertain proceedings in certain cases- (1).After the commencement of this Act, no Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order or notice unless an appeal under Section 340 is preferred and the same is disposed of by the appellate authority under sub-section (3) of Section 343 of this Act. (2). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), every suit, application or other proceedings pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue to be dealt with and disposed of by that Court as if the said section has not been brought into force.
* 3 * CRA-269/2010 . From bare reading of the provision, it is clear that it bars a suit or proceeding in respect of any order or notice" issued by the “ board, unless an appeal against the decision of the order provided under the Act is disposed off. The present proceedings have been filed by a private party against the applicants. Though the subject matter of the suit and the subject matter of the notices issued by the Cantonment Board is the same i.e. construction of compound wall by the applicants which according to the respondents, as well as, the Cantonment Board is illegal, the provision of Section 250 cannot be attracted as the suit challenges neither the notice nor the order of the Board.
Operative part
Mr. Ingale, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the impugned order mainly deals with only one ground raised in the application by the applicants i.e. bar under Section 339 of the said Act. It does not deal in detail the objection raised on Section 250 of the said Act. Paragraph-12 of the impugned order refers to the objection raised by the applicants based on Section 250 of the said Act and observes that the respondents-original plaintiffs not being parties to the appeal preferred by the applicants before the * 4 * CRA-269/2010 Cantonment Board, there can be no bar under Section 250 of the said Act. Though the reason given by the learned Judge for rejection of the application is different, in view of the clear language of Section 250 of the said Act, in my opinion, the impugned order does not require any interference. In the circumstances the Civil Revision Application is dismissed.
[SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Revision Application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Cantonments Act, 2006 — s. 250.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 05 Aug 2010. The bench was R P SONDURBALDOTA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.