SANATAN DHARAM SABHA Vs. ABDULLAH
LAWS(J&K)-1986-1-3
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on January 02,1986

SANATAN DHARAM SABHA Appellant
VERSUS
ABDULLAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Poonch, through its President, Roshan Lal and member Isher Dass have filed suit for possession of a piece of land situate in Ward No. 1, Poonch. The suit was decreed by the learned Sub Judge, Poonch. In appeal, the learned District Judge, Poonch, set aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court and remanded the case on two grounds, namely, (1) that the provisions of O.1, R.8. C.P.C. have not been complied with in the case and, (2) no issue was raised in regard to the plea taken by the defendant in the case that they were in possession of the suit land since the year 1956. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners, who are plaintiffs in the case, have come up in revision before this Court.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record before me. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the plaintiffs-petitioners, while filling the suit in representative character, moved an application under O.1, R.8. C.P.C. for permission of the court to sue on behalf of the Sanatan Dharam Sabha and the learned Sub Judge on the first date of hearing in his interim order mentioned about the filing of such application and further ordered for issuing publication of notice as required under the said provision of law and this fact connotes the issuance of permission under the said provision of law to the plaintiffs. Learned, counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that the provision of law contained in O.1. R.8. C.P.C. is mandatory in nature and its non-compliance amounts to vitiating of all the proceeding and merely issuing publication as required under the said law. does not amount to grant of permission under O.1, R.8. C.P.C.
(3.) The record shows that the plaintiffs filed the suit on July 22, 1975 in a representative capacity being President and member of Sanatan Dharam Sabha. Along with the suit, an application under O.1, R.8, C.P.C. was filed for permission to sue on behalf of and for the benefit of all the members of Sanatan Dharam Sabha. Learned Sub Judge on receipt of the plaint issued proclamation as required under the said provision of law and required all the concerned to file objections, if any, regarding the institution of the suit on the next date of hearing which was fixed as August 22, 1975. The trial Judge also mentioned about the filing of the application under O.1, R.8, C.P.C. in the court before the issuance of the proclamation. There is subsequently no order by the trial Court for the grant of such permission.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.