PRODUCIN PVT. LTD. Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE MINOR FOREST PRODUCE (T&D) COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The disposal of this appeal would also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 83/2013, as both the appeals arise out of order dated 1-8-2013 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Baikunthpur, District Koriya in Civil Suit Nos. 4-A/2013 and 5-A/2013, by which, the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') and thereby directing return of the plaint filed by appellant/plaintiff for presentation to the Competent Court. Since common question of fact and law are involved, therefore, they were heard together and being decided by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, M.A. No. 82/2013 is taken-up as the lead case. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of these appeals are as under:

(2.) Mr. Satish Agrawal, and Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the trial Court has committed grave legal error in holding that the suit to be barred and covered by Sections 64(1) & 82(1)(c) of the Act, 1960. They would further submit that the sale and purchase of the Sal seed is admittedly and indisputably governed by provision of C.G. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 and the Sal seed being a Forest produce defined in Section 2(d) of the Adhiniyam, 1969 and the defendant No. 2 has duly been appointed as an agent on behalf of the State Government and agreement has been entered into on behalf of the State Government in the name of the Governor, and would further submit that the power has been given in the agreement to recover arrears as arrears of land revenue clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that it is not a business of defendant No. 2 Society, but it is exclusive business of the State Government to be regulated under the provision of Adhiniyam, 1969, through appointing agent under Section 4(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1969 and defendants No. 1 & 2 are the agent of the State Government, therefore, the order of the trial Court directing return of the plaint in exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII, Rule 10, CPC deserves to be set-aside.

(3.) Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Anant Bajpai, P.L. for the respondent No. 3, would support the impugned order of the trial Court returning plaint.