NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

Meg Raj (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Manphool (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (15 Mar 2019)

Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred

MANU/SC/0380/2019

Civil

In facts of present case, the dispute relates to 4/5th share in the suit land. The suit land was subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 wherein the Prescribed Authority had passed an order dated 17th October, 1978 in relation to the suit land. This led to filing of two civil suits by two sets of persons claiming interest in the suit land. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that, the order dated 17th October, 1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Act is null and void. The Trial Court, by judgment/decree dismissed the suit as being barred.

By a common impugned order, the High Court dismissed suits giving rise to filing of present appeals by special leave by the Plaintiffs of both the civil suits. The short question involved in the present appeals is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing R.S.A. No. 40/1984 and allowing R.S.A. No. 2712/1987.

The High Court was justified in holding that both the civil suits were barred and thus were not triable by the Civil Court in the light of express bar contained in Section 26 of the Act. Mere perusal of the plaint in both the civil suits would go to show that, the Plaintiffs (Appellants) had challenged therein the legality of the order dated 17th October, 1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Act and prayed that the order dated 17th October, 2018 be declared null and void.

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that, the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Section 26 (b) of the Act clearly bars filing of civil suit to examine the legality of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Act. The Civil Court's jurisdiction is expressly taken away by Section 26(b) of the Act from examining the legality of orders passed under the Act. The remedy of the Plaintiffs in such case lies in filing appeal/revision under Section 18 of the Act against the order of the Prescribed Authority. The High Court was justified in dismissing the Appellants' suits as being barred by virtue of the bar contained in Section 26 of the Act. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.

Tags : SUIT   MAINTAINABILITY   JURISDICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved