Wednesday 4 August 2021

Is it mandatory to issue the notice as per S 180(2) of the Gram Panchayat Act in the suit for a permanent injunction?

 The only question in the instant revision is whether a notice under section 180 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 1958 (for short, "the Act") was necessary to be given before filing the suit for permanent injunction.

The defendants i.e. the Gram Panchayat and its Sarpanch raised a preliminary objection that in the absence of a notice under section 180 of the Act the instant suit was not maintainable. The said objection was tried as a preliminary issue by the learned trial Court which rejected the same by its impugned order. Being aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant revision in this Court.

A careful perusal of section 180(2) of the Act would show that the notice to the Gram Panchayat or any of its member, officer, servant or agent is necessary when anything is done or is purported to have done by or under the Act. The question, therefore, is whether the said provision is applicable to only past actions or whether it is applicable to the future actions also as in the case of a suit for permanent injunction.The relief claimed in the instant case is of permanent injunction in regard to future actions which are apprehended by the plaintiff.

5. The view is supported as held in the Bombay case cited supra by the provision relating to the contents of the notice in section 180(2) itself viz. that the notice shall state the cause of action, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed and the name and place of abode of the person who intends to bring the action, which would show that the action contemplated therein is about damages for past wrongful actions.
6. Be that as it may, it is clear from the phraseology "anything done or purporting to have done" used in section 180(2) of the Act that the action contemplated is an action which has taken place unlike the expression "purporting to be done" used in section 80 Civil Procedure Code which is indicative of future actions also. There is, therefore, no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the applicants that the notice under section 180(2) of the Act was necessary.
C.R.A. No. 47 of 1986
Decided On: 04.03.1986
Appellants: Gram Panchayat, Kuhi and another
Respondent: Vijaykumar Radheshyam Bhalotiya
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
H.W. Dhabe, J.
Citation;1986 Mh.L.J. 618 Bom
Read full Judgment here: Click here
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment