GAJENDRASINH MAHIPATSINH CHUDASMA Vs. TORRENT POWER GRID LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the original plaintiff calling in question judgement dated 03.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No. 711 of 2010.

(2.) Brief facts are as under:

(3.) Appearing for the appellant, learned counsel Shri Ravani submitted that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. The proceedings before the District Court under sub-sections 3 and 4 of section 16 are of summary nature. No appeal is provided against the judgement of the District Court. When complex questions of law and facts arise, the same can be decided only by the civil court after permitting both sides to lead evidence on record. Counsel relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in case of Church of North India vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and Others reported in 2005(10) SCC 760 to contend that exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil court should not be lightly inferred. Counsel submitted that when the civil suit was filed no compensation was paid to the plaintiff. The cheque for the amount of Rs.94000/- was received by the plaintiff only on 01.01.2011. The averments to the contrary made by the defendant in the written statement must be ignored. As per settled law, while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, the court must confine itself to the averments made in the plaint.