Subsection (3A) above clearly shows
that any person if aggrieved by the action taken under subsection (2) of
Section 53, he may within thirty days from the date of exercise of such
power, appeal to the Commissioner and after making such enquiry, the
Commissioner may pass such orders as it deems necessary. The notices as
well as resolutions made by Gram Sabha would clearly “exercise of such
powers” occurring in subsection (3A) of the Act. Thus, it is clear that the
remedy provided by subsection (3A) is an appellate remedy against any
action taken under subsection (2) of Section 53 of the said Act. It will be also
pertinent to note that the Act does not provide for any remedy thereafter i.e.
after the exercise of the appellate power by the Commissioner and, in my
opinion, the remedy of subsec.(2) of Section 53 is in order to check the
menace of encroachment everywhere including the villages and that is
why the power is given to the Panchayat to follow the procedure and
remove the encroachment. The procedure under section 53 of the said Act
clearly appears to be summary in nature but still there is remedy
provided by subsection (3A) of section 53. I have perused the said notice
dated dated 17.2.2011 and 26.4.2011 as well as resolutions dated
25.4.2011 and 26.4.2011. In my opinion, the notices and the resolutions
clearly fall within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 53 of the said
Act. It is thus clear that provisions of Section 53 (2) and (3A) are squarely
attracted in the instant case and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
stands excluded.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 57 /2012
Village Panchayat, Antora
v e r s u s
Wasudeo Ramchandraji Mohod
CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J.
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/ 06/2014
Citation; 2014(5) MHLJ 189
ApplicantVillage Panchayat, Antora, the original defendant in
the Regular Civil Suit No. 2/2011 has put to challenge the order dated
22.09.2011 (below Exh.1) passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division
Ashti, with a further prayer to dismiss the Suit as not maintainable.
2.
The applicantVillage Panchayat Antora is governed by the
provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to
as “the said Act “ in short). The nonapplicants filed RCS No.2/2011 in the
Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. Ashti and challenged the letter dated
17.02.2011 and notice dated 26.04.2011 and resolution of Gram Sabha
dated 25.04.2011 and 26.04.2011 as illegal, null and void, without
jurisdiction and also sought permanent injunction from damaging/
demolishing the construction over the suit site. In the Suit, the non
applicants stated that Plot No. 127 in Ward No.2 village Antora
admeasuring 45 x 45 is owned by them and they are in possession since
1962 with mutations in their name with Village Panchayat, Antora. None
objected to their possession. On 22.12.2010 they submitted an application
with map for proposed construction of a house and since there was no
communication from the applicantVillage Panchayat about acceptance or
rejection of permission to make construction from 22.02.2011 to 23.04.2011
there was a deemed permission for construction upon completion of two
months statutory period. The nonapplicants were allotted Plot No.127 in
the year 1962 by Bajrang Housing Cooperative Society for construction of a
house and thus they were the owners of Plot No.127. There being a
deemed permission as aforesaid, the attempt to demolish their house as
per notices and resolutions under challenge was illegal. The suit was
accompanied by injunction application and the trial Court had ordered
status quo. The applicantvillage Panchayat, after appearance in the Civil
Court, filed a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit on the
ground that the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act at least insofar as
Sections 52 and 53 are concerned, provide for specific remedy and,
therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. It was also stated in
the reply that there is no sanction to Plot No.127 at Antora by any authority
or by the Gram Panchayat and not a single document was placed on record
about the ownership or possession of the nonapplicants and it was for the
first time in the year 1994 mutation in the Gram Panchayat record was
shown as Kuccha Kotha and nothing more. But then that was an
encroachment and, therefore, when the application was received by the
applicantGram Panchayat with proposed construction map, the non
applicants were called upon to produce original documents and title
documents of the suit property etc, but not a single document was ever
produced. According to the applicants, there is no residential Plot No.127
allotted to the nonapplicants/plaintiffs and though by letter dated
17.02.2011 the nonapplicants were called upon to produce the original
documents they could not do so and hence there was no question of
deemed sanction. The trial Court, thereafter, decided to frame and tried
the preliminary issues in view of the objections raised by the applicants and,
accordingly, the following three preliminary issues were framed :
1)
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain
the present suit in view of provision under
..Yes
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain
2)
section 52 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act?
the present suit in view of provision under
section 53 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act?
3)
..Yes
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain
the present suit in view of provision under
Section 59 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act?
3.
.. Yes
The parties were directed to lead evidence on the aforesaid
preliminary issues and, accordingly, in all five witnesses were examined and
crossexamined on the preliminary issues. The trial Judge upon hearing the
evidence and the counsel for the parties, held that the Civil Court has
jurisdiction to entertain the suit and, thus, answered the preliminary issues
accordingly. Hence the present Civil Revision Application.
4.
Mr. Avinash Gharote, learned counsel for the non
applicants/respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability
of the Revision Application on the ground that First Appeal would lie
against the impugned order since it has a force of decree. The submission
was examined by this Court and counsel for both the parties were heard.
This Court did not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Gharote that
order on preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction of the Court would be a
In support of the Revision Application, Mr. M.M.Sudame
5.
decree. Hence the said objection is overruled.
learned counsel for the applicant made the following submissions :
(i)
That Sections 52 and 53 of the said Act provides for remedies
under the said Act which is a special law. The suit filed by nonapplicants
was clearly barred and for that matter will have to be held to be impliedly
barred. The Civil Court does not have jurisdiction since the remedy is clearly
provided under the provisions of Sections 52 and 53 of the said Act. The
remedy provided is alternate and effective remedy and the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court is clearly barred.
(ii)
The plaint and documents and the impugned order clearly
shows that the nonapplicants do not have a single document showing their
title to the suit property when the plaint avers that plot No.127 was allotted
to them by Bajrang Cooperative Society. Not a single document is
forthcoming and there is neither any primary evidence nor secondary
evidence brought on record by the nonapplicant about their title to the suit
property. The suit property is part and parcel of the Village Panchayat land
falling within its territorial jurisdiction and the nonapplicants are the
The payment of Gram Panchayat taxes in respect of the suit
(iii)
encroachers.
plot that too from 1994 would not confer title on the nonapplicants and,
therefore, the action taken by the Village Panchayat in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 52 and 53 of the said Act could not be challenged
before the Civil Court because the special Act namely, Village Panchayat Act,
provides for specific remedies under the provisions of the said Act against
such notices/resolutions or as the case may be. Hence, the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court is clearly barred.
(iv)
The prayers made in the suit clearly indicate that the challenge
to the letters and notices and the resolutions of Gram Sabha could be raised
before the authorities provided by the special law and not before the Civil
Court.
(v)
In the absence of any prima facie proof of title that too after
allowing the nonapplicants to produce oral as well as documentary evidence,
it could not be said that the Civil Court would be entitled to entertain the suit
in respect of action of removal of encroachment by Gram Panchayat in
accordance with the procedure provided by the said Act. He, therefore,
contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed as being not maintainable. He
1)
cited the following decisions:
(2007) 11 SCC 40: Commissioner of Municipal Corporation vs. Prem
(2007) 11 SCC 58: B.Bharat Kumar and others vs. Osmania
University and others
1986 Mh.L.J. 618: Gram panchayat Kuhi vs. Vijaykumar Bhalotiya
3)
2)
Lata Sood and others
4)
2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 196: City of Nagpur Corporation vs. Indian
Gymkhana
5)
2013 (5) ALL MR 190 : The Commissioner Akola vs. Bhalchandra
Mahashabde
6.
Per contra, Mr. Avinash Gharote, learned counsel for the non
applicants vehemently opposed the Revision on merits. He argued that the
nonapplicants have been paying taxes in respect of the suit property to the
Gram Panchayat. None of them have raised any objection about their
possession or payment of taxes to the Gram Panchayat. Form 8 shows the
entry of the name of the nonapplicants as the persons in the possession of
the suit filed and at least for the present, the nonapplicants are entitled to
go to Civil Court to prevent the demolition of the construction since they
have been in possession. The Civil Court is the only Court which will have
jurisdiction to find out the title and the authorities under the Village
Panchayats Act cannot adjudicate on the issue of title and, therefore, the
only remedy available to the nonapplicants was to file Civil Suit. The non
applicants are the owners and the suit property is their private property.
ig
Though it is true that the documents of allotment of plot to the nonapplicants
from the Bajrang Cooperative society are not with the nonapplicants as on
date ; they may get the documents in future but then only on that ground
the suit cannot be thrown out. He further argued that the nonapplicants
having been in possession of the suit property for a number of years or from
1962 onwards without any objection raised by the Gram Panchayat or
anybody the same cannot be disturbed. He then argued that the non
applicants had applied for permission to make construction and for two
months nothing was done either by refusal or accepting the construction
plan and, therefore, there was a deemed sanction in favour of the non
applicants in law and as such, they were entitled to make construction
which could not be allowed to be demolished by Village Panchayat and,
therefore, the Civil Court was the right Court in the factsituation. Mr.
Gharote then argued that since the question of title is squarely involved,
there is no other forum available in law and and hence the suit is perfectly
maintainable. He cited the following decisions :
1992(2) Mh.L.J. 1468 : Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Mohan Assava
2) (2002) 6 SCC 416: Dhruv Green Field Ltd.vs. Hukam Singh and others
3) AIR 1981 BOMBAY 394: Vasant Pandit vs. Bombay Municipal Corp.
4) 1996(1) Mh.L.J. 673: Girish vs.Purushottam
5) AIR 1965 SC 555: The Poona City Municipal Cropn. vs.Dattatraya
1)
For finding out whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred
7.
Deodhar.
or not, the exercise cannot be done without carefully reading the pleadings
of the parties so also oral evidence adduced before the trial Judge on
preliminary issues by as many as five witnesses for both the parties. The
submission by Mr. Gharote that since the preliminary issues have been tried
and decided against the applicantGram Panchayat, the suit should be
allowed to be tried expeditiously does not appeal to me since it is a settled
legal position that the higher court is under a duty to find out whether the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred or not. All the more so in the instant
case, the preliminary issues were framed, tried evidence was allowed to be
adduced and then decided.
CONSIDERATION:
8.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and upon
perusal of the impugned order so also pleadings, evidence, various decisions
cited before me, at the outset, I find that preliminary issues were framed and
decided on evidence by the learned trial Judge. The bar against the
jurisdiction of Civil Court was discussed by the Apex Court time and again
and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to repeat or discuss the said aspects
of the mater except quoting paragraph 10 in the case of Dhruv Green Field
“10.
Ltd. vs. Hukam Singh and others : (2002) 6 SCC 416:
In the light of the above discussion, the following principles
may be restated:
(1)
If there is express provision in any special Act barring
the jurisdiction of a civil court to deal with matters specified
thereunder the jurisdiction of an ordinary civil court shall stand
excluded.
(2)
If there is no express provision in the Act but an
examination of the provisions contained therein leads to a
conclusion in regard to exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil court, the
court would then inquire whether any adequate and efficacious
alternative remedy is provided under the Act; if the answer is in
the affirmative, it can safely be concluded that the jurisdiction of
the civil court is barred. If, however, no such adequate and
effective alternative remedy is provided then exclusion of the
jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be inferred.
(3)
Even in cases where the jurisdiction of a civil court is
barred expressly or impliedly, the court would nonetheless retain
its jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the suit provided the
order complaint of is a nullity.”
9.
I, therefore propose to examine the present case in the light of
the aforesaid principles for finding out whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court
was barred or not. Though the trial Court framed three preliminary issues
on Sections 52, 53 and 59 of the said Act, I think the issue about Section
10.
53 of the said Act is the only relevant issue.
I have perused the plaint carefully. It is only in paragraph 4
of the plaint there is an averment that Bajrang Cooperative Society had
allotted Plot No.127 to the nonapplicants/plaintiffs for construction of
house and accordingly mutation entries were made in their favour. To this,
the reply is that there is nothing to show that the nonapplicants have been
in possession since 1962 nor there was any allotment or entry of allotment
either in favour of Society or the nonapplicants anywhere in the Village
Panchayat record but it was for the first time in the year 1994 the Kuccha
Kotha was mutated in the mutation entry and nothing more which,
according to the Village Panchayat, Antora is an encroachment. Thus, as to
the ownership and possession of Plot No.127 not a single document was
produced either in the suit or in the oral evidence that was tendered by as
many as five witnesses before the learned trial Judge. During the course of
hearing before me I had specifically asked the counsel for nonapplicants to
show any document of allotment or any other corroborative evidence about
the allotment of plot by the housing society or allotment of the land to the
housing society by the government or the Collector; but the counsel replied
that at least as on date there are no documents to that effect and in future
they would be produced if they are made available. Even in the cross
examination, the nonapplicants and the witnesses admitted that they do
not have any documents to show to the above effect. The evidence of
Krishnarao Ingle shows that in the year 1974 for the first time the entry
was made in the mutation register in the name of the nonapplicants but
except his oral version, nothing is produced. But then it is settled legal
position that mutation entry cannot confer any title. If really the suit plot
was allotted to the nonapplicants by the Cooperative society the mention
thereof must be found in the Village Panchayat or the record of the
Collector office or the Cooperative Department or any other corroborative
piece of evidence could be found out. The assertion and evidence by the
applicant Gram Panchayat that there was neither any society nor any
allotment of plot by the Government or by the Gram Panchayat nor was
there any pleading in this context will consequently have to be given due
importance. Perusal of the averments and the oral evidence of five
witnesses thus clearly show that even as on today though three years have
passed, the nonapplicants have not been able to produce or prove even
prima facie about their right to be on the plot particularly when the Village
Panchayat has found it to be an encroachment and accordingly the Gram
Sabha and the Village Panchayat resolved to remove the encroachment.
11.
That apart, the prayers in the suit reads thus:
“(A)
Pass a decree for declaration against the defendant
thereby the letter dated 17.2.2011 and notice dated
26.4.2011 and resolution in the meeting and in Gramsabha
respectively dated 25.4.2011 and 26.4.2011 be declared as
(B)
illegal, null, void and without jurisdiction;
Pass a decree for permanent injunction against the
defendant, its servants, officebearers, agents and labourers
thereby they be restrained permanently from damaging,
demolishing and dismantling and construction over suit sites
in any manner and further be restrained from interfering in
manner;
(C) Saddle the cost of the suit open defendant; And
(D) Pass any appropriate relief in the favour of plaintiff.”
peaceful enjoyment of the suit site by plaintiffs in any
Perusal of the above prayers clearly show that there is no prayer
by the nonapplicants claiming any declaration of their title or even the
possession. On the contrary, prayer clause (A) clearly shows that the actions
taken by the applicant Village Panchayat, Antora by letters dated 17.2.2011
and notice dated 26.4.2011 so also resolutions of Gram Sabha dated
25.4.2011 and 26.4.2011 are being challenged as illegal and null and void. All
these actions of the Village Panchayat are certainly referable to the
function, duties and powers of the Village Panchayat under the said Act
which is a special Act. The remedy to put to challenge the validity or the
legality of the letters/notices and Gram Sabha resolutions cannot be found
before the Civil Court by a suit for declaration. The applicant Village
Panchayat is of the view that since the nonapplicants have not produced a
single document of their title, ownership or possession or legal right
before the Gram Panchayat they are encroachers. The same is the position
before the Civil Court or before this Court. The nonapplicants/plaintiffs
are, therefore, the encroachers over the suit land. In the above factual
background, it would be convenient to quote the provisions of Section 53 of
the said Act which reads thus:
“53.
Obstructions and encroachments upon public
streets and open sites: (1) Whoever within the limits of
the village
(a)
builds or sets up any wall, or any fence, rail, post,
stall, verandah, platform, plinth, step or structure or thing
or any other encroachment or obstruction, or
(b)
deposits, or causes to be placed or deposited, any box,
bale, package or merchandise or any other thing, or
without written permission given to the owner or
(c)
15
occupier of a building by a Panchayat, puts up, so as to
protect from an upper storey thereof, any verandah,
balcony, room or other structure or thing.
In or over any public street or place, or in or over or upon
any open drains, gutter, sewer or aqueduct in such street or
place, or contravenes any conditions subject to which any
permission as aforesaid is given or the provisions of any bye
law made in relation to any such projections or cultivates or
makes any unauthorised use of any grazing land, not being
private property, shall on conviction , be punished with fine,
which may extend to fifty rupees, and with further fine
which may extend to five rupees for every day on which
such obstruction, deposit, projection, cultivation or
unauthorised use continues after the date of first conviction
for such offence.
(2)
The Panchayat shall have power to remove any such
obstruction or encroachment and to remove any crop
unauthorisedly cultivated or grazing land or any other land,
not being private property, and shall have the like power to
remove any unauthorised obstruction or encroachment of
the like nature in any open site not being private property,
whether such site is vested in the Panchayat or not, provided
that if the site be vested in Government the permission of
the Collector or any office authorised by him in this behalf
shall have first been obtained.The expense of such removal
shall be paid by the person who has caused the said
obstruction or encroachment and shall be recovered in the
same manner as an amount claimed on account of any tax
16
recoverable under Chapter IX.
(It shall be the duty of the Panchayat to remove such
obstruction or encroachment immediately after it is noticed
or brought to its notice, by following the procedure
If any Panchayat fails to take action under sub
{(2A)
mentioned above.)
section (2), the Collector suo motu or on an application
made in this behalf, may take action as (provided in that
subsection,and submit the report thereof to the
Commissioner). The expense of such removal shall be paid
by the person who has caused the said obstruction or
encroachment or unauthorised cultivation of the crop and
shall be recoverable from such person as an arrear of land
revenue.)
(3)
The power under (subsection (2) or sub
section (2A) may be exercised in respect of any obstruction,
encroachment or (unauthorised cultivation of any crop)
referred to therein whether or not such obstruction,
encroachment or ( unanuthorised cultivation of any crop) has
been made before or after the village is declared as such
under this Act, or before or after the propeorty is vested in
the Panchayat.
(3A)
Any person aggrieved by the exercise of the
powers of the Panchayat under subsection (2) or (3) may,
within thirty days from the date of exercise of such
powers( appeal to the Commissioner and the Commissioner,
17
after making such enquiry as he thinks necessary, shall pass
such orders as he deems necessary) after giving such person
a reasonable opportunity of being heard.)
(3B)
Any order made by the Collector in exercise of
powers conferred on him under subsection (2A) or (3) shall
be subject to appeal and revision in accordance with the
provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Mah.
(4)
XLI of 1960).
Whoever, not being duly authorised in that behalf
removes earth, sand and other material from, or makes any
encroachment in or open an open site which is not private
property, shall, on conviction, be punished with fine which
may extend to fifty rupees, and in the case of an
encroachment, with further fine, which may extend to five
rupees for every day in which the encroachment continues
after the date of first conviction.
(5)
Nothing contained in this Section shall prevent the
Panchayat, from allowing any temporary occupation of, or
erection in, any public street on occasions of festivals and
ceremonies or the piling of fuel in by lanes and sites for not
more than seven days, and in such manner as not to
inconvenience the public or any individual or from allowing
any temporary erection on, or putting projection over, or
temporary occupation of, any such public street or place for
any other purpose in accordance with the bye laws made
under this Act.”
Subsection (2) of Section 53 provides for a power of the
Village Panchayat to remove any encroachment in any open site not being the
private property whether such a site is vested in the panchayat or nor. As
found by me above, there is a total failure on the part of the nonapplicants
even prima facie for showing that the property is their private property.
They have not been able to prove it even remotely except for showing
some tax receipts and mutation made in the year 1994 in respect of Kuccha
Kotha. However, whether there is an encroachment or not whether it is the
private property of the nonapplicants; the burden would certainly be on the
nonapplicants to prove that the suit property is their private property and
that it is not an encroachment. That being so, in my opinion, subsection
(2) of Section 53 of the said Act gives a power and duty to the applicant
Village Panchayat to remove the encroachment. In fact, proviso to sub
section 2 of Section 53 was added by amending Act No.38 of 2006 to provide
for compulsion on the Village Panchayat to remove the encroachments. By
the amendment, appellate power was conferred on the Commissioner in
place of ‘Standing Committee’ of Zilla Parishad for obvious reasons. It is in
this background the letter dated 17.2.2011 notice dated 26.4.20911 were
issued to the nonapplicants so also resolutions were passed in the Gram
Sabha on 25.4.11 and 26.4.2011. Subsection (3A) above clearly shows
that any person if aggrieved by the action taken under subsection (2) of
Section 53, he may within thirty days from the date of exercise of such
power, appeal to the Commissioner and after making such enquiry, the
Commissioner may pass such orders as it deems necessary. The notices as
well as resolutions made by Gram Sabha would clearly “exercise of such
powers” occurring in subsection (3A) of the Act. Thus, it is clear that the
remedy provided by subsection (3A) is an appellate remedy against any
action taken under subsection (2) of Section 53 of the said Act. It will be also
pertinent to note that the Act does not provide for any remedy thereafter i.e.
after the exercise of the appellate power by the Commissioner and, in my
opinion, the remedy of subsec.(2) of Section 53 is in order to check the
menace of encroachment everywhere including the villages and that is
why the power is given to the Panchayat to follow the procedure and
remove the encroachment. The procedure under section 53 of the said Act
clearly appears to be summary in nature but still there is remedy
provided by subsection (3A) of section 53. I have perused the said notice
dated dated 17.2.2011 and 26.4.2011 as well as resolutions dated
25.4.2011 and 26.4.2011. In my opinion, the notices and the resolutions
clearly fall within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 53 of the said
Act. It is thus clear that provisions of Section 53 (2) and (3A) are squarely
attracted in the instant case and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
stands excluded.
12.
20
Apropos, paragraph 10(2) in the case of Dhruv Green Field
Ltd. vs. Hukam Singh and others (cited supra), I thus find from the
examination of provisions of Section 53 of the Act in terms show that the
Act which must be treated as ‘special law’ as against the ‘general law’ and
Sec.53 of the Act as special provision to deal with the matters like notices
dated 17.02.211 and 26.04.2011 so also resolutions of Gram Panchayat
dated 25.04.2011 and 26.04.2011, one must conclude the exclusion of
13.
the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
The next question is whether adequate and efficacious remedy
is provided under the Act. The answer is obviously ‘yes’ . As discussed
earlier, there is an obligatory duty cast on the Gram Panchayat and power
conferred under subSection (2) of Section 53 of the Act. But then the
action cannot be taken without recourse to the principles of natural justice
and without following the procedure. A clear statutory appeal as of right
is provided to the Commissioner who is supposed to conduct the appeal also
taking recourse to the powers and procedure for appeals under Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code. Hence, alternate efficacious as of right remedy is
clearly provided.
14.
That apart, Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act 1963,
which raises a bar, reads thus:
“41 : Injunction when refused – An injunction cannot be
granted
21
ig
(a)
...
(b)
...
(c)
...
(d)
...
(e)
...
(f)
...
(g)
...
(h)
when equally efficacious relief can certainly be
obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of
breach of trust;
(i)
...
(j)
...”
It has been held that the purpose of this clause (h) is to prevent
multiplicity of proceedings. The prayer for injunction in prayer cause (b) of
the suit is therefore clearly barred by virtue of Section 41 (h) of the Specific
Relief Act,1963.
To sum up, it will have to be held that the suit in question as
framed is clearly barred and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court being barred,
the suit will have to be dismissed.
Hence, the following order :
ORDER
i) Civil Revision Application No.57/2012 is allowed with costs.
ii) The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the R.C.S. No. 2/2011
is barred.
iii)
R.C.S. No. 2/2011 is dismissed and consequently order of status quo
iv)
Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
is vacated.
No comments:
Post a Comment