1 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.134 of 2006. Ashok Kumar son of Shri Bajrang Lal VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.134 of 2006. Ashok Kumar son of Shri Bajrang Lal VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order :::: 29th January, 2010. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. R.P. Garg, Counsel for the Plaintiff-appellant. Mr. R.B. Mathur, Counsel for the defendant-respondents *** By the Court : This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been preferred by the plaintiff- appellant, whose suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from releasing an amount of Rs.13,30,139/- being dues against the Excise Department. 2 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.134 of 2006. Ashok Kumar son of Shri Bajrang Lal VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others Apart from the other objections, the defendant- respondents submitted that the suit is not maintainable and accordingly Issue No.5 was framed in this behalf. It was contended by the learned counsel that the remedy under the Excise Act is provided by filing an appeal under Sections 9-A and 9-B of the Rajasthan Excise Act, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts has been barred. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 10.07.2000, but the learned Lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.02.2006 accepted the appeal filed by the defendant-respondents and dismissed the suit. While doing so, the learned Lower Appellate Court decided Issue No.5 against the plaintiff-appellant and held as follows :- ''जब राजःथान आबकारȣ अिधिनयम मɅ ःपेिसǑफक Ǿप से िसǒवल कोट[ के ÏयूǐरǔःडÈशन को बार Ǒकया है, ूःतुत मामला बकाया कȧ वसूली के िलए है, ǔजसको Ǿकवाने कȧ ǐरलीफ दावे मɅ चाहȣ है। यह भी ःपƴ है Ǒक अधीनःथ Ûयायालय ने घोषणा भी कȧ है, जब ःपेिसǑफक Ǿप से आबकारȣ ǒवभाग कȧ वसूली का मामला है और इस संबंध मɅ आबकारȣ अिधिनयम कȧ धारा 9 बी के अधीन िसǒवल Ûयायालय का ¢ेऽािधकार वǔज[त Ǒकया हआ है ु , तब भी अधीनःथ Ûयायालय ने वादȣ का दावा सुनने का ौवणािधकार मानने मɅ ऽुǑट कȧ है।'' Learned counsel for the defendant-respondents submitted that while this Court earlier in its judgment reported in 2000 (3) R.L.R. 166 in the case of District Excise Officer and Others Vs. M/s. Smt. Kalawati Hari Singh Choudhary and Party 3 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.134 of 2006. Ashok Kumar son of Shri Bajrang Lal VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others had held the suit being maintainable in the Civil Court in a Special Leave Petition preferred against the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of Kalawati (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal bearing No.19/2001 on 16.08.2007 has held as follows while taking note of the provisions of Section 9-B of the Rajasthan Excise Act. “9-B. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts. - No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding to set aside or modify - a) any original order passed by an officer competent to do so under the provisions of this Act, or b) any order passed under, or referred to in, Section 9-A.” This averment was not considered by the trial Court as, according to the trial court, Section 9-B has not been produced before it. We are at loss as to why the trial court has come to the conclusion as Section 9-B has itself been quoted in the written- statement. We have gone through the contexts of the written-statement, and reply to the injunction application of the appellant annexed in this appeal. On going through the written objections particularly paragraph 14 of the said objections, entire 90B has been quoted. In view of the matter, the trial court has committed a grave miscarriage of justice and jurisdictional error. On appeal being filed by the appellant before the High Court, the High Court has also committed the same mistake and failed to appreciate the import of Section9-B of the Act whereunder the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred. (See : Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and Others, 2005 (10) S.C.C. 760. A perusal of Section 9-B, as amended, shows 4 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.134 of 2006. Ashok Kumar son of Shri Bajrang Lal VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others that there would be clear bar on the civil court jurisdiction. In view thereof, the orders of both the trial court and the High court are not sustainable in law and they are accordingly quashed. The Civil Suit No.117/1999 filed by the respondent, therefore, is not maintainable and the same stands dismissed accordingly.” In that view of the matter so far as the findings on Issue No.5 regarding the maintainability of the suit, as held by the learned Appellate Court call for no interference. There is no merit in this second appeal. The substantial questions of law, which were framed by this Court while admitting this second appeal vide order dated 03.10.2007 stand answered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalawati's case. This second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/