Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties.
(2.) THE present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment of two Courts below allowing the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs - appellants. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dtd.30.8.2005 which was upheld by the first appellate Court by judgment dtd.16.11.2005 and both the Courts below held that since notice as required by Section 50 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 was not given by the plaintiffs to the Rajasthan Housing Board before instituting the suit in question, therefore, the said suit was barred by law and, therefore, the same was bound to be dismissed on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs - appellants Mr. L.R. Mehta submits that the substantial question of law framed by this Court in the present second appeal deserves to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs - appellants as the impugned action cannot be said to be undertaken and done in pursuance of Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1970) and therefore, there was no question of giving any notice as required in Section 50 of the Act before instituting the said suit.
(3.) THIS Court by order dtd.11.5.2007 framed following substantial question of law for determination by this Court: In a case where the plaintiff claims his property right in the suit land, whether the notice under Section 50 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 is a condition precedent for maintaining the suit and limitation prescribed under the Act of 1970 governs the suit?;