Paramjeet Singh, J. - (1.) INSTANT regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellants -defendants against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby judgment and decree dated 17.11.1986 passed by learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Fazilka has been set aside and suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Court of first instance.
(2.) THE detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that notice dated 20.06.1984 is illegal, null and void and is not binding upon it and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount of Rs. 84,500/ - as arrears of token tax in respect of bus No. RRK -4358. It was averred that plaintiff society is owner of two buses bearing registration Nos. PBK 786 and PBX -386 and it has no relation with bus RRK -4358 regarding which tax has to be deposited. It was also averred that bus in question is registered at Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan and is owned by Zimidara Transport Company Ltd. It was also averred that the plaintiff had requested defendants to refrain from effecting recovery of token tax allegedly due in respect of Bus No. RRK -4358 and issued a notice under Section 80 CPC. But defendants failed to heed to request of plaintiff and thus, suit was filed. Upon notice, defendants appeared and resisted the suit on the ground that jurisdiction) of the civil Court is barred in view of Section 14 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 and Section 158(2)(iv) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The suit is not maintainable without first depositing the amount under Section 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. According to the defendants, the plaintiff society in its letter dated 10.04.1980 had intimated that the society had purchased the bus in question. The plaintiff society did not get the vehicle registered) in the State but had been plying it unauthorisedly since 31.07.1979. No road tax had been paid By the plaintiff in Punjab State under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
(3.) PLAINTIFF filed replication denying the averments in the written statement and reiterating the averments in the plaint.;