DIPTI CHAKRABORTY Vs. ASHISH BHATTACHARJEE
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Click here to view full judgement.
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,CJ. -
(1.) This revision petitionseeks to challenge the order of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong dated 12.4.2016, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIIRule 11CPC has been dismissed. The petitioner/defendant in the applicationraised the following arguments:
(a)The plaint if read as a whole does not disclose any cause of action for filing the related title suit. It also does not disclose the date or dates on which the cause of action if any has arisen. Hence, the instant suit cannot be allowed to proceed and the embargo created under Order VII Rule 11(a) comes into play and therefore the Plaint of Title Suit No. 45 (T) of 2015 is to be rejected.
(b)The opp. party/plaintiff has not only claimed declaration of his right, title etc. But he has also claimed the possession of the suit premises and in such eventuality the plaintiffis required to pay the ad-volarem court fee as per the value of suit premises. The relief claimed by the plaintiff is grossly undervalued and the plaint is written upon papers insufficiently stamped and is also presented in the wrong court and the same is required to be rejected.
(c)That the jurisdiction of this court is expressly barred under the provision of Assam Land and Revenue Regulations 1886 (as adopted by the State of Meghalaya) and therefore the instant suit cannot be entertained in its present form and therefore liable to be rejected.
(d)That the suitis barred by the principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence.
(e)That the suit is barred by limitation and no explanation, whatsoever has been offered nor any explanation for condonation filed to enable the plaintiff to file the present suit. Such be the case the suit is expressly barred by law and as such not maintainable in its present form and the plaint of Title Suit no. 45 (T of 2015) is liable to be rejected.
(f)That the plaint is not maintainable in its present form as the opp.party/plaintiff did not verify the pleadings and statement set forth in the plaint and on this ground alone the plaint as filed by the opp.party/plaintiff is defective and incomplete and is liable to be rejected for non compliance of the provision of Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC which says that every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties' pleadings or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
(2.) While dealing with the argumentthat the jurisdiction of the Court is expressly barred by the provision of the Assam Land AndRevenue Regulation,1886 (for short the Regulationsof 1886), learned Court below,upon considering Section154contained in Chapter IX of the said Regulationand Full Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court in Daularam Lakhani Vs. State of Assam and Ors. 1989(1)GLJ 37, held that Section 154of the Regulation does not in any manner bar the Civil Court from entertaining the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
(3.) Mr. K.Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the case set up by the defendant before the Court below was that clauses (a) and (c) of Section 154(1) would be attracted, but the fact is that actually Section 154 was substituted by new Section 154 vide the Meghalaya Land and Revenue Regulation (Application And Amendment) Act, 1972 (for short the Act of 1972), the impugned order has thus been passed relying on un-amended Section154 of the originally promulgated Regulations of1886 which contained as many as fourteenprohibitory clauses viz.,(a) to (n).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.