Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J. contemplated the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where the order passed by the Civil Judge was challenged.

The factual matrix of the case was that the application under Section 80(2) CPC was filed by the petitioner to seek the permission to institute suit without complying the provisions of Section 80 CPC, which was duly rejected. Petitioner contended that a suit was filed for a permanent prohibitory injunction, to restrain the respondents from interfering in peaceful possession and from dispossessing him forcibly from the place where he was running his business. Along with the aforesaid suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Section 80(2) CPC, seeking therein leave of the Court to institute the suit without compliance of provisions contained under Section 80 CPC. The petitioner contended that the defendants threat him and might remove his business without any authority of law and hence, a direction was sought to prohibit them.

On the contrary, the respondents contended that the relief claimed by the petitioner was not urgent in nature and hence, prayers made on behalf of the petitioner that notice must be exempted under Section 80  were not justified.

Hence, the Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as it was not found that the matter was urgent and the exemption was not needed.

The High Court, observed that, the court below when passed the impugned order, had proceeded to decide the application in slipshod manner without looking into the contents of the plaint as well as an application filed under Section 80(2). A bare perusal of the averments contained in the suit as well as the application under Section 80(2), clearly revealed that plaintiff in the suit had claimed that since 2004 he had been running his business in a peaceful manner. Further, the question was ‘whether valid permission was acquired by the petitioner to set up his tent for running his business?’

It was stated that the question had not been decided by the Civil Judge also it was decided that the case was of urgent nature. It clearly emerged from the pleadings that tents were set up by the various traders on the spot in question temporarily during apple season and in case petitioner, who had claimed that he had been set up tent on the spot in question for so many years, was not heard by the Court below on priority basis, relief prayed for in the suit as well as interim application would render infructuous. It was further observed the respondents will not suffer any prejudice if the exemption was granted of not filing the notice. Hence the petition was allowed.[Hemant Sharma v. State of Himachal, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 1094, decided on 04-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J. dismissed a writ petition filed by a village pradhan challenging the order of District Court (revisional court) whereby matter pertaining to the validity of his election as pradhan was directed to be considered afresh by the Prescribed Authority.

Petitioner was elected as the village pradhan of village Bahadurpur. Respondent filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 against the petitioner on the ground of unfair practice, etc. Prescribed Authority formulated two issues, whether the petition was barred by provisions of Rule 11, Order 7 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and whether the petition had not been filed in accordance with the law. Prescribed Authority recorded the finding that the plaintiff was required to issue a notice to the opposite party under Section 80 of CPC but the same has not been done, hence the election petition was barred. The petitioner preferred civil revision against this order which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to Prescribed Authority for deciding the matter afresh on merits. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the revisional court.

Counsel for the petitioner Aditya Pratap Singh, submitted that the election petition had rightly been dismissed by the prescribed authority as the election petition was barred by the provisions of Rule 11, Order 7 CPC, and the revisional court had exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Counsel for the respondent, Ajay Veer Pundir and Narain Dutt submitted that there was no requirement to serve notice under Section 80 CPC in an election petition and the prescribed authority had committed patent error in law by dismissing the election petition.

The Court relied on the judgment of Kushuma Devi v. Sheopati Devi, 2019 SCC Online SC 482, in which it was held that every judicial or quasi-judicial order shall be supported with the reasons which support its conclusion, as the revisionary court while examining the correctness of the order is entitled to know the basis on which a particular conclusion was arrived at in the order. It was opind that the prescribed authority had not recorded any reasons for its order.

It was opined that reasons recorded in judgment are the life of law and in their absence, the judgment could not be said to be legal. The Prescribed Authority had travelled beyond the issues which were under the consideration and the revisional court was justified in remanding the matter back to the prescribed authority and hence writ petition was dismissed.

Further, the Court opined that without framing an issue in regard to notice under Section 80 CPC, the Prescribed Authority had held the election petition to be barred by Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Thus, the findings recorded by Prescribed Authority in this regard were illegal, and therefore the revisional court’s order remanding the matter back to Prescribed Authority for fresh consideration was valid.

In view of the above, the petition was dismissed.[Narendra Singh v. Anil Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 471, decided on 14-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: The Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J., allowed a petition filed against the order of the Trial Court which rejected an application of the petitioner filed under sub-section (2) of Section 80 CPC to waive notice on the ground of urgency.

Plaintiffs-petitioners had instituted the suit for a perpetual injunction against the defendants and also filed an application under sub-section (2) of Section 80 CPC to waive notice on the ground of urgency. However, the Trial Court rejected the application. The petition was filed against the order of the Trial Court. The petitioners had filed an application for injuncting the defendants from demolishing a portion of the house standing over the suit land. The suit had been instituted to obtain an urgent relief against the Government. Mr Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the Trial Court had without assigning any reason rejected the petition.

The Court observed that Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 80 CPC postulates that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1). The Trial Court had rejected the petition without giving reasons. This amounted to the denial of justice. The petition was thus allowed. [Basantilata Swain v. State of Orissa, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 133, decided on 18-03-2019]