s\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER/ Defendant No. 1 RE»PONDBNT/ Plalatiff RESPONDENT/ Defeadaat No. 2 Qcvil RevistonNo. 10 of 2004 Versus 1. 2. Krishi Upaj Mandi • Samithi, Dui^, Through its Secretary. M/s Khandelwal Rice Mfll, Gundardehi, District Durg, Through: Ghanshyam Khandelwal, Proprietor, Aged about 36 years, S/o Late Madholal Khandelwal, Resident of Gundardehi, District Durg (C.G.j. State of Chhattisgarh, ThroueEh Collector, Durg, District Diirg (C.G.). PETn-IONER/ Defendant No. 1 RBSPONDENT/ Plaintlff RESPONDENT/ Defendant No. 2 AND Clvil Re^lsioa No. 12 of 2004 Versus 1. Krishi Upsq Mandi Samithi, Durg, Throiigh its Secretary. M/s Anand Rice MU1, Gundardehi, District Dui^, Throuah: Shyam Sunder Khandelwal, Propifietor, Aged about 45 years, S/o Late Madholal Khanddwal, Residejrtt of Gundardehi, Dlstrict Durg (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Throueh CoUectcxr, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 1 MEMO OF CIVIL REWISION UNDBR SBCTION 115 OP THE CaVIL PROCEDURB COTOE. (SB sHon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Presenfc- Shri H.S. Patel, Advocate for fb.e petitioner. (m Civil Revjision Nos. 10/2004 & 12/2004). ! 1 Shri Viinlesh Bajpai, Advocate fox fhe respoiuient No. 11(10. CivU Revision Nos. 10/2004 & 12/2004). Shri RakeshJha, Dy. G.A. for the Stete/respondent Ti(3). 2. 1::! i j 8.. j-Bdtt^ .^"s^ 'tf-^~\ ^S&i'lh I 'i*aa'!SB • i :'iL hiIJ &«jf"^y '^sy - 2^ z^ ^ ORAL-ORDBR (Passed on 27/09/2010) Since both the cml revisions No. 10/2004 8s 12/2004 ffled on behalf of the petitioner against fhe coinmon order dated 3/ 1/2004 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit Nos. 6- B/2003 & 5-B/2003 are being disposed ofby this common order. By this civU revisions petitioner has chatlenged fhe legality and propriety of fhe order dated 3/1/2004 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Di-irg in CivB Suit Nos. 6-B/2003 Ss 5-B/2003 on common questlon of law mvolved m suit relating to maintaina.bility of the suit against the petitioner i.e. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samithi, in terms of Sections 66 & 67 of the Chhattisgarh KrishlUpaj Mandi Adhtniyam, 1972 (inshort 'Adhiniyam 1972'). As per fhe case of the parties petitioner had issued different notices to respondent No. 1 which he replied thereafter after servtng the notice under Section 67 of fhe Adhiniyam 1972. Respondent No. 1 has filed dvil suit against the petitkiner !fbr declaratfon of recovery miU aiid void and for retum of money so recovered. Present petitioner has contested fhe case and objected that in the light of Seetions 19 (4), 34 (4) fis 66 & 67 of the Adhiniyain 1972; suit filed on behalf of the respondent No. I is not maintatnable. F'reUminaiy issues No. 3, 5 & 6 were fianied and after providing an opportunlty of heartng to fhe parties leamed Court below has rejected the pbjections ofthe petitioner. Leamed counsel for fhe parties are heard. 1:S^ -I -j>- 8. Order unpugned and copy of plalnt filed on behalf of the petitioner perused. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner .vehemenfly argued fhat Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhinlyam, 1972 is special Act and complete procedure has been presGribed ui the said Act therefore cinl suit is barred in terms of Section 66 of the Adhiniyam 1972. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner further argued that la accordance with Section 19 (4) of the Adhiniyam 1972, five times market fees is recoverable. Order passed by Chainnan, Ktarket Committee and fhe Director is appealable under Sectkin34i ofthe Adlitniyam 1972 and the order passed in appeal would be final and shaU not be GaUed in questkin in any Court of lacp In terms of Section 34 (4) ofthe Adhmtyam 1972. Leamed counsel for fhe petitloner also ai^ued that civil suit is barred tn terms of Section 66 of fhe Adhiniyam 1972 but in certain circumstaiices suit vaay be filed after serving the iWSQce as required iinder Section 67 of the Adhiruyam 1972 within 6 monfhs frosi the date ofthe accrual ofthe alleged cause of action. Leamed counsel for the petitioner also argued that present respondent No. 1 has not filed any appeal and has directly chaUenged the proceediag by filing civil suit same is not maintainable under Section 66 of the Adhiniyam 1972 and also barred by Umitation in terms of Section 67 of fhe Adhinlyam 1972. •Airtite., ..i -Ll ^ 10, rf 11. /• t... On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent No. 1 vehemently opposed fhe civil revisions & objections and submits that in terms of Section 67 Adhiniyam 1972 plainttff is entitled to file civil suit after serving the notice. He has served the notice to petitioner and has ffled the suit wifhtn limitation fherefore suit is maintainable before the civil Court and Court below has rightly rejected fhe petition flled on behalf of the petitioner. The provisions of Section 67 of the Adhirdyam 1972 is clear aad unambiguous eveiy civU suit is not barred under Section 66 pf the Adhiniyam 1972 and actkm of the authorities vasy be challei^ed by fhe parties before fhe Civil Coiirt after serving the notice and filing the suit wifhin Umitation in accordance wifh Sectlon.167 of the Adhiniyam 1972. After considerir^ fhe contention | of the i: i.; , . pardes leamed 8th Addltional District Judge, Durg has i^ejected the objection of the pefiitioner. WhUe rejectir^ the objfection 1 . leamed 8th Additional District Judge, Durg has neither ex^eeded its jurisdiction vested on it nor failed to jurisdiction vested| on it. Court below faas not committed any Ulegalily requiring any interierence tn exerdse of rerisional jurisdiction and suit ffled on behatf of the respondent No. 1 is malntainable before the civU Court. Consequently, civil revisions No. 10/2004 fls 12/2004 are liable to be dismissed andis hereby dismissed. i No order as to costs. SdA;. [- P.Sharma Judge