GOTJENG SANGMA Vs. AIJONISH D. SHIRA
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Aijonish D. Shira
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the orders dated 11.12.2020 and 17.12.2020 passed in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2020 and Title Suit No. 26 of 2020, by the Court of the Judicial Officer, Sub-ordinate District Council Court, GHADC, Tura. Against the same order dated 07.12.2020, the petitioner has also assailed the same by invoking Rule 6 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order 2014 read with Section 115 CPC by contending that in the same order itself the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected.
(2.) The facts briefly put is that the petitioner had leased out 4 (four) hectares of land to the respondent vide a Lease Agreement dated 18.07.2017 for stone mining activities but as some dispute arose as to the validity of the said agreement, the same it appears was terminated vide Notice dated 12.10.2020. This prompted the respondent herein to institute a suit before the Subordinate District Council Court, GHADC, Tura for declaration and for grant of temporary injunction which was registered as T.S No. 26 of 2020 and Misc. Case No. 10 of 2020 respectively. The Trial Court thereafter, by order dated 26.11.2020 while issuing notice to the petitioner fixing 17.12.2020 for appearance, granted temporary ex-parte injunction restraining the petitioners from entering the suit land and disturbing the possession of the respondent. The petitioner then submitted his show cause and written statement on 09.12.2020. Thereafter on hearing the parties, by order dated 17.12.2020, the Trial Court was then pleased to make the temporary injunction order absolute. Apart from the written statement and show cause, the petitioner also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the dispute was commercial in nature and as such, dispute being covered by the Commercial Courts Act, of 2015, the District Council Court did not have jurisdiction over the same.
(3.) The petitioners grievance centers around their contention that apart from the injunction order which was made absolute, their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 17.12.2020 and the same being not appealable they are invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and at the same time questioning the orders dated 11.12.2020 and 17.12.2020.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.