^-^ IN THE^HGHLCQtTRT e ^yOieATyREA^SI£MiPUR pETTTIONfiR vs RESEQNDENTS ^. A^^ ^t^ DwaTika: Prasad Pan3ey, so&, &£ Shfi Jaggaaafh Pa.adey, aged al>out 48 yeaa-s, tesideat Qf^afadBiL GIi.owk,I^U Xoad, &aiput. 1. State o£ Gffiattisgarti, th.rougti the Secretaty, Miriistry'; of 3-,aw' aad Legislatiye Affa.u-s, Mafflttalaya., D-K.S. B&awaa,, Raipui (t3;©.) ^ A)^--^.1"" ^ .*<'4f^ .'.''• ..** ^l^v~ .-•"" ^<i^"./--" ^""" y 2-The Ra.ipur Munictpat: CotjaiQtsitioil, a. bo3y corporate co&s.titBteA uiad.er the tele-vant pa-ovistoij«j,.,;»£^G.G, Muatcipat ^otgpiatieff^ -&ct,^tiiio'ag& •'^the^' .: : C©mift^M^^.'';'''^ i^ ^ CptpQrattoa, ]*&hiiyar'8.Qa8»,B.aipur. 3. 'R..D.A-, Througli; Chief Executive Q&'icet, G.E. 'Road, Raiput, District Raipur (C.G.) WRrT PETmONUNDER ARTieLE226&22?<OF'rHE eONSTITUTIOMQF INDIA. ^f^ -^&^ •^s: fvs^^ ^:^ :i£{SSf{S<:f. 'S^ '<fimy<t, wSwWf'^wW^ . \jj,t-N3i.'2-^;6t,;:l%flO^ ysisssi^H s^f^^e (.f'&fvy^ ag^rw !<•))* ^F^'aR^er »^i^ :^ -* K ^«( («fel<tt^<t OrVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRt A.K. PATNAIK. GJ & HON'BLesHRISUNIL KUMARS 06.07.2005: Heard Mr. Manoj F^iranjape, V.V.S.Murhty.tomedDy.Adyocate! and Mr. Pankaj Agravral, leamed c<| Raipur/respondentNo.2. . framed eounsel^r the peS8oneir,;IUIr. (Geherat fbr the State ofehhritisgarti (unsel fcr the Muntejpal ©OTporation, coristrugtion The petttioner has constructe^ in Patwari Halka No.108. The eonshitcton vras made after the Raii objection certificateforconstructKM'ij 1994 and yet ttie Raipur Munici(^(3 removal of the aforesaid petitiQner fllsd Civil Suit No.74-A 6f| | Class-11, Raipur against the Raipur | the said suit he also filed an Givil Judge after hearing the fKulie^ granting injunction in favourofthe Corporation. The Raipur Municjpal| applicatton under Order 7 Rule 11| rejecKon of the plaint oftt®petiUen^ suit no notice has been sen/ed' pntitioher under SeeBon 401 o( C"rR""^<ln AGt '195S l'anamat?i pelWonier' appli^od ^ ij^^^'i*V^VS^'^ ^&t€^^^^. ' iR'.^N:.^i^ %^^-^^ NHA.*». asmallhotdarKiacabihatRalpiUr ieliUanier^ <sase is that tKe afor^aid !{»urMuhielpal Corporationgrantect IMI; (>Mhe building t?y onter ilated SO-'t't- ^GrpQration inifiated a isKieeedjng ;fer inacl& 1?y the pefi^oner. yThe 1®97in the Gourt of FHtH^Ghrit.ludge |(4unietpat Corpofsrtlon and al<»ngwith i?fo temporary uyuncttsn. L^imed pa^ed an order dated 05-1<I-^9Q7 p^UUoner against the Raipiir hAuinkapal Gorporation, howarer, has flted an <rf fte Gode of Civil Precedure for ^on ttie groynd ttiat^tefensmingttta ffiie Municipal ©orporaCon^lsytte the Madhya Prades^ Municipal Mter adaptatfons t)V fliteSStata^ oto p»-3/200t-i 3^-<<i<(i<n<i|, ©•rtiy'is,I«teli.y^< Nw?iiw*ira> s-.„...,-„,.,OO^..Akt.:t-5S.F|l"<l£. 3i)^r'(Iew(lgfI^«i<;at) ^ff^f^?^fw ^S^*tffa W 4fi^( St**ffeP <- '.i. '^^:lt<^.. ^<S R'(ti^d 3TI^?t --2^- Chhattl^arh as ChhattBgarh refsrred to as"Vhefiicf).The dismissed by theCivByudge on served by the petfhoner on the therefors, filed this writ petiBon Section 401 <rfthe Aet^s uftravires do not make any exception when againstthe MunicipalGorporafion. Muntet|sal CorporaUon ^rt; ISSSsBlsreinsifterj petitfBliirt' apptthends that his suitjjliaysbe thelgrouncl ttiat no such nottre;has besn MunjcipalCorppraUon. Ths pefiSonerlias, p^ng for d^&ring tiie pronsto^ |>n ttie ground at the said pffovfsions (n uigent relief Isclaimal in the suit In the OKter dated 20-06-20Q5 2005 (Mangilat Pagaria Vs. Stateof hekl that two paraltel proeeedings ii( cannot be mainteitnecl by the petW<(ner Ghril Court and by iray of a writ|B( petftioner can always ChallengeUi^JI suit. We have further held in the saiS 9 of the Code of Civil ProcNture (subjecttoUie provisions eontainedj try alt suits of a dyil nature excspflng either expressly or impliedly barr^d provision of the Constitution has be^i which a suit declaring a pmwteSs^ expressty or imptiedty barred. ln| however, we hwe directed that in case is dismisSeaon e grourKl th^ A<* ftam nnt haan camplied ^•^i^^^f^^^^ :'::. . ^3i^t3B^a3?is'?*@i; pa^ed in Wnt Petjtion No.1234.<rf Ghhatti^iarh and anotfter) we ha» respectofthesamecai.i^ofaetjon byvray ofa chnl sujtbeferettie tionftBefere this Cflurt ahct that the Ivires of Sectlon 401 <rf ttie Act in ttie J1908 provictes that tfie Oourte shall iin e sakl Code) havejuristfictfon te sute of whfeh their ©ognttenceis and no provision of taw and no broughttothenotJceofthsCourtby eS an Act as ultra irires Is eithar ttie said OFdw elat8ds2Q-^20(®, case the suit of tte (Afitlonerlifi that the priMstons ofSeefi8n^401 oftti® Wr ttte petitloher tWfoiwsfflina A suft, — SiTB —A'200f—50,000- :-:^^?^:;%^ *l|tWEFtl>*t|et> '3:^^traK'i<t,:»Tttyt6;Esff((y^ |.;-..~...v^^tti;fc&,bi.l-^ StA«i^?(w{ia^}<<<iS^ an^tq>Tft;iro "3% ^(1^ SI>*tlcS c n-- »--^ fifteen days' time wlll be granted to eorporation tcrenable the pefiUonei Court aritfto move an application fo ofUiis !n the result, we dispose wll be ciRen to the petiUoner to chi Act in ttie suit filed bythe petiUonw case the suit ofthe petitioner Is disi allowed by ttie MunteiiMil Corporatt appellate Court and move an appl clear that we have not expressed any ofthe parties and the trial Co^ the ciuestions raised before them accordancewitti law. C disWssed, afy A' Sd/- ChiefJustice ^^^E^H ^WN'lf'^^-^^ill^l ^Tot^&f SB^^: ^^ ittie.p^tionerby^UieRap.nSMi.lntEiRd |to file an appeal befere^Uie^jigellaW interinffordsrs. wit petition with the dn^on that it (llenge the vire? of SecUonWt of tiie; |>eforeflte <Sivit Court at RaitH.ir ancl ini l.aperiodeffireesri/clayswrtllbe^ |n, Raipur to file an appeal beftire'the^ tcation for Interim ordsrs. We make lt opintonon the merits afthe cate&ef |rt and the ap(»llsiteGourt wll cleGide (iy the tarties on their own merits in Sd/- . j [' '?• Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ :yKJ—f!Si7S—3i'2QO( -SO.OOa