[ad_1]
Bombay High Court
The Chopda Agriculture Market Produce … vs Devendra Vishwasrao Sonawane on 26 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:23300
1 928.CRA.No.90-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
C.R.A NO.90 OF 2025
1] The Chopda Agriculture Market Produce Committee,
Market Yard, Chopda, Through its Secretary,
Rohidas Bhaskarao Sonawane
Age: 52 years, Occ: Service Secretaryof APMC Chopda,
R/o:Plot No. 5B, Chanda Gavri Nagar,
Yaval Road, Chopda, Tq. Chopda,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2] Narendra Vasantrao Patil
Chairman of Agricultural Produce,
Market Committee, Chopda.
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: House No. 21, Gujar wada, Gartad,
Post Vele, Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. ..Applicants
VERSUS
1] Devendra Vishwasrao Sonawane
Age: 54 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Hated (Bk.) Tq. Chopda, Dist.Jalgaon. ...Respondent
*****
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Sanjay S.Dudhane h/f. Mr.Dhorde Vikram R.
Advocate for Respondent/Sole : Mr. Vijay B.Patil h/f.Mr.C.V.Borse
******
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
RESERVED ON : 19th AUGUST 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26 th AUGUST 2025
2 928.CRA.No.90-2025.doc
FINAL ORDER :
1. Heard both sides finally at the admission stage.
2. This revision is directed against order dated 02.04.2025 passed
below Exhibit-18 in R.C.S No.04 of 2025, refusing to reject the plaint
under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. Respondent has filed R.C.S No.04 of
2025 against the applicants, plaint of which is sought to be rejected.
3. The controversy pertains to shop No.31 allotted to the
Respondent by the Applicant/Committee on lease. Respondent was
inducted by passing resolution on 04.10.2017. The allotment is stated
to be against following due procedure of law and he was sought to be
evicted. A resolution to that effect was passed on 23.07.2023. In
pursuance of that notices were issued to the Respondent on
01.08.2023, 17.08.2023 and 24.12.2023 for vacating the shop. Being
aggrieved, the respondent has filed R.C.S No.04 of 2025.
4. It’s a case of respondent that by following due procedure of law
he was allotted shop No.31. There was no violation of terms and
conditions. Due to political rivalry, action was proposed against him
for vacating the shop. He was issued notices for eviction which is
cause of action for him to file suit. He has prayed for declaration that
the notices are bad in law. Sealing of shop is also illegal. He is also
praying for mandatory and perpetual injunction.
3 928.CRA.No.90-2025.doc
5. Applicants filed application Exhibit-18 under Order 7 Rule 11 of
C.P.C on the ground that before filing suit, mandatory requirement of
Section 55 of ‘The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing
(Development And Regulation) Act, 1963‘ (hereinafter referred to as
‘Act’ for sake of brevity and convenience) was not followed and the
suit is not tenable. It is further contended that respondent has
virtually challenged the decision of committee for which remedy under
Section 52(B) of the Act is provided. By impugned order, application is
rejected.
6. Learned counsel Mr.Dhorde submits that neither any notice was
issued by the respondent to the applicants nor is there any averment
in the plaint about notice. Hence, bar under Section 55 of Act is
attracted. It is contended that the resolution and the decisions of the
market committee are virtually challenged in the suit bye-passing
statutory remedy under Section 52(B) of the Act. When mechanism is
provided for ventilating grievances before the forum, jurisdiction of the
civil court is barred. It is submitted that impugned order is perverse
because the submission that there is bar under Section 55 of Act has
not been dealt with even.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.Patil supports impugned order. It
is submitted that in view of Section 55(3) of Act, bar is not attracted
to the suit filed for declaration and injunction. It is submitted that only
4 928.CRA.No.90-2025.docresolutions were passed but final decision has not been taken by the
committee. It is further submitted that jurisdiction of the civil court
under Section 9 of C.P.C can not be excluded for the relief of
declaration or mandatory injunction. It is further submitted that
Section 52(B) is not attracted in the present case which pertains to
contractual obligation.
8. Having heard both sides what is relevant is that respondent has
filed suit for declaration, challenging the notices, mandatory injunction
for removing the seal and perpetual injunction to protect the
possession. The scope of enquiry under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C is
very limited. It is not necessary to deal into the disputed facts as to
whether the allotment of shop is in accordance with law or the action
proposed against the respondent is illegal or not, at this juncture.
Undisputedly, respondent was allotted shop No.31 and against him
action is proposed for vacating the shop.
9. I have gone through Agenda dated 13.07.2023 for convening a
meeting and the resolution dated 22.07.2023 passed by the
Applicant/committee which shows that allotment of the shop was
found to be illegal. It was resolution No.16 which is referred in the
notices dated 24.07.2023, 01.08.2023 and 17.08.2023 issued to the
respondent for vacating the shop. The resolution dated 29.09.2023
passed by the committee shows that the approval was granted by
5 928.CRA.No.90-2025.doc
resolution No.10 for evicting the respondent from the shop and it was
resolved to take further steps after soliciting legal advice. Further
resolution dated 23.12.2024 also shows that it was resolved to seal
the shop and approval was granted.
10. The resolutions referred above do not suggest that any
conclusive decision is taken by the committee against the
respondent. Neither is there any order evicting respondent. The
allotment of shop to the respondent is a contractual matter. No
provision is pointed out from the Act empowering the applicants to
terminate the contract and to secure the possession of shop.
Therefore, remedy under Section 43 or Section 52(B) is not available
to the respondent. Learned counsel Mr.Patil is right in his contention
that in the absence of any conclusive decision or order, remedy under
Section 52(B) of the Act is not attracted.
11. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on the judgment of
this Court in the matter of Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs.
M/s.Jugalkishore Kedarnath Agrawal & Sons reported in 2008(5) ALL
MR 643. My attention is adverted to paragraph No.17 to buttress the
submission that when tribunal under the Act is conferred jurisdiction
under Section 57 then remedy of civil suit is barred. In that case
A.P.M.C had filed suit for rendition of account and dues payable under
6 928.CRA.No.90-2025.doc
Section 57 of the Act. By implication of Section 57(3), it is held that
remedy of civil suit is excluded. In the case at hand, no specific
remedy or forum in respect of contractual obligations are provided so
as to exclude jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 9 of C.P.C.
This judgment will be of no help to the applicants.
12. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava (dead) by
Lrs vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1988 SC 752. The said case
pertains to the action and remedy under the Income Tax Act. In view
of particular provision of Section 66 (7) of Act, it was held that remedy
of civil suit is barred. The facts are distinguishable from the present
case and this judgment will also of no help to the applicants.
13. Respondent did not issue any notice before approaching civil
court. The plaint is silent in respect of service of notice. Learned
counsel Mr.Dhorde is right in contending that bar is attracted under
Section 55(1) for want of notice. In the present case suit is filed for
declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunctions. The suit filed for
perpetual injunction are saved by implication of Section 55(3) of Act
which is as under :
“55. Bar of Suit in absence of notice :
(1)___________________
(2)___________________
7 928.CRA.No.90-2025.doc(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any suit instituted
under section 54 of the Specific Relief Act,1877.”
. Section 54 of The Specific Relief Act,1877 provides for
perpetual injunction under Chapter X. Thus, the suit is maintainable for
relief of injunction. The suit is not maintainable for relief of declaration.
In such a situation, a useful reference can be made to judgment of
Central Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Prabha Jain and Ors. reported in
(2025) 4 SCC 38 for the ratio that if the suit is partly maintainable,
then Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C can not be invoked.
14. The civil court has always jurisdiction under Section 9 of C.P.C
unless it is expressly or impliedly excluded by any statutory provision.
There are disputed questions of facts which can be addressed in a
full-fledged trial. The rejection of the plaint at the threshold in the
present matter can not be permitted. I am of the considered view that
no apparent illegality or perversity is committed by the trial court.
15. Reliance is placed by the applicants on the judgment of this
Court in the matter of Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Jain Kalar
Samaj in 2024 DGLS (Bom.)4088. I have gone through paragraph
Nos.54 to 57 and 83 of the judgment. I have already recorded that
even if it is held that the compliance of Section 55(1) would be
mandatory and suit is barred for relief of declaration injunction, suit
8 928.CRA.No.90-2025.doc
would be tenable to the extent of relief of injunction due to Section
55(3) of the Act. This judgment will be of no assistance fo the
applicants.
16. For the reasons stated above, I find no substance in the
revision application. Hence, Civil Revision Application (C.R.A) is
dismissed.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]
18. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for the
applicants prays for continuation of the interim relief, which is in
operation till this date.
19. Learned counsel Mr. Patil opposes the request.
20. It’s a matter of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of
C.P.C. There is no need to stay the proceedings of the suit which is
registered as R.C.S. No.4 of 2025. It’s a trite law that plaint can be
rejected at any stage of the proceedings. The request is rejected.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]
vsj
[ad_2]
Source link