TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is true that u/s 24 of the Code, the High Court has jurisdiction to suo motu withdraw a suit or appeal, pending in any court subordinate to it, to its file and adjudicate itself on the issues involved therein and dispose of the same. Unless the High Court decides to transfer the suit or the appeal, as the case may be, to some other court or the same court, it is obliged to try, adjudicate and dispose of the same. It needs little emphasis that the High Court is competent to dispose of the suit on preliminary issues, as contemplated in Order 14 Rule 1 2 of the Code, which may include the issues with regard to maintainability of the suit. If the High Court is convinced that the plaint read as a whole does not disclose any cause of action, it may reject the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. As a matter of fact, as observed by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., in T. Arivandandam [ 1977 (10) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT] , if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise its power - under the said provision. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') for acquiring 0.6900 Hec. of land belonging to one Tek Chand, respondent No. 4 herein, for construction of approach road for Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Dehradun, respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the Hospital ). Tek Chand objected to the said acquisition. In the meanwhile, on 25th May, 2005, he alienated a part of the said land in favour of appellants No. 1 and 2 by way of gift deeds. Gazette notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 16th June, 2005. 4. On 4th July, 2005, Tek Chand (respondent No. 4) preferred a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It appears that on 27th March, 2006, a clarification was issued by the State Government, respondent No. 1, to the effect that the possession of the passage to the Hospital shall remain with them; the Government would be making financial contribution in its construction and the public would be entitled to use the same. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government in the Writ Petition it was reiterated that the road was not going to be used exclusively by the Hospital. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suits and the appeals by passing the following short order: We have perused the averments made in the suits as well as in the appeals, which are represented by Sri Neeraj Garg (Advocate). Since, the question involved is directly raised in the writ petition and we are hearing the writ petition, therefore, the suits as well as appeals pending before the court below are dismissed accordingly. Let this writ petition for final hearing on 03.04.2007. Learned Counsel for the Respondents may file Counter Affidavit, if any, by 03.04.2007. In the meantime, if the Respondents shall raise any construction that will be at their own risk. It is against this order of the High Court that this appeal, by special leave, has been filed. 9. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the High Court has committed a manifest error in dismissing the suits by a cryptic order without taking into consideration the nature and the purport of the two suits. Learned Counsel argued that the scope of the Writ Petition filed by the original owner of the subject land and the suits filed by the appellants was entirely different i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arliest stage, learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr. [1978]1SCR742 12. Thus, the short question for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the two suits on the sole ground that it was proposing to examine a similar issue in the Writ Petition preferred by the original owner of the land? 13. Section 9 of the Code provides that civil court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting the suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. To put it differently, as per Section 9 of the Code, in all types of civil disputes, civil courts have inherent jurisdiction unless a part of that jurisdiction is carved out from such jurisdiction, expressly or by necessary implication by any statutory provision and conferred on other Tribunal or Authority. 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 by a statute. 14. In Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. [1974]3SCR882 this Court had observed as under: Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of the same. It needs little emphasis that the High Court is competent to dispose of the suit on preliminary issues, as contemplated in Order 14 Rule 1 2 of the Code, which may include the issues with regard to maintainability of the suit. If the High Court is convinced that the plaint read as a whole does not disclose any cause of action, it may reject the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. As a matter of fact, as observed by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., in T. Arivandandam (supra), if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise its power - under the said provision. And if clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X CPC. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the suit has to be disposed of either by the High Court or by the courts subordinate to it in a meaningful manner as per the procedure prescribed in the Code and not on one's own whims. 18. In the instant case, as noted above, vide order dated 20th March, 2007, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
