LexABDUL GAFUR AND ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 1142 At A ABDUL GAFUR AND ANR. II. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4982 of 2008) AUGUST 11, 2008 "( ~ s- [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 19QB - ss. 9 and 24 - Or. 7, r. 11, Or. 14, rr. 1 and 2, Or. 39, rr. 1 and 2: c Suits - Disposal of - Land acquired by State Govern- ment for construction of approach road for hospital - Land owner meanwhile alienated by gift deed a part of the land - Donees filed suits for perpetual injunction against hospital - Trial Court granted temporary injunction - That order appealed D against - During pendency of appeals, land owner filed writ petition alleging acquisition of the land as fraudulent - High ~- Court withdrew the pending suits and appeals to itself and sum- marily dismissed the same on the sole ground that the ques- tion involved therein was directly raised in the writ petition - E Held: Order of High Court cannot be sustained - Object of filing of the suits could be a dubious and indirect attempt on part of land owner to derive some undue advantage in conniv- ance with the donees, yet that was no ground to dismiss the suits summaril~ in the manner done - Arguable questions, F legal or factual, could not be summarily rejected without re- t· cording a reasoned order - Mere entertaining of the writ peti- tion, to which the donees were not parties, even if it involved determination of similar issues, was not a good ground to dis- miss the suits without granting opportunity to the parties to G prove their respective stands - Moreover, scope of the writ petition and the suits was different - Suits and appeals re- stored to file of High Court for decision afresh - Land Acquisi- \ tion Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6 - Practice and Procedure. Notifications were issued under ss.4 and 6 of the H 1142 ABDUL GAFUR & ANR. v. STATE OF 1143 UTTARAKHAND & ORS. ~ Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring land belonging A to respondent no.4, for construction of an approach road for respondent No.3-hospital. Respondent no.4, in the meanwhile, alienated a part of the said land in favour of appellant nos.1 and 2 by way of gift deeds. Subsequently, licence deed in respect of the said land was executed in B ,,. favour of respondent no.3 and construction of the road commenced. Apprehending that respondent no.3 was planning to raise a boundary wall on both sides of the road, which would obstruct use of the road by public at large, includ- c ing the appellants, the appellants filed suits for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain respondent no.3-hospital from raising any kind of construction. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction. Respondent no.3 filed ap- peals against the interim injunction, during pendency of D which, respondent no.4 filed a writ petition alleging that "" the acquisition was fraudulent. Exercising its power un- der s.24, CPC, the High Court, vide an ex-parte order, trans- ferred the pending suits and appeals to itself. Appellants filed misc. application in the said writ petition seeking re- E call of the ex-parte order. The High Court did not pass any order on the misc. application and summarily dis- missed the said suits and the appeals on the sole ground that the question involved therein was directly raised in the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. F """ Allowing the appeal, the Court HE~D:1.1. As per s.9, CPC, in all types of civil dis- putes, civil courts have inherent jurisdiction unless a part _j of that jurisdiction is carved out from such jurisdiction, G expressly or by necessary implication by any statutory provision and conferred on other Tribunal or Authority. i Thus, the law confers on every person an inherent right ..... to bring a suit of civil nature of one's choice, at one's peril, /'( howsoever frivolous the claim may be, unless it is barred H 1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. -'t >' A by a statute. [Para 13] [1150 E-G] Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar & Ors. (1974) 2 SCC L 393 and Dhannalal v Kalawatibai and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 16 . I' "."'"relied on. I B 1.2. Rule of pleadings postulate that a plaint must ~ contain material facts. When the plaint read as a whole "'( ;- does not disclose material facts giving rise to a cause of l- action which can be entertained by a civil court, it may be : rejected in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. Similarly, a c plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil court has
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.