TMI Blog1946 (3) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing circumstances : It appears that the plaintiff was running a kiln somewhere near Mauza Mahrauli in the district of Farrukhabad for about 35 years before the institution of the suit and was using it for burning bricks. In the year 1935, the District Board of Farrukhabad framed certain bye-laws restricting the construction and burning of the kilns within the jurisdiction of the Board. One ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in any way interfering with the plaintiff's carrying on of his legitimate trade of Bhatta on the site in dispute. The defence was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, that the suit was barred by S. 192, clause (3) of the District Boards Act, and that it was also defective because no notice under S. 192 was served on the Board. The learned Munsif who tried the sui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the 15th of July (March?) 1942. The suit having been brought on 25-7-1942, was well within six months from that date. I also do not agree with the learned Judge that in a suit for injunction a notice is necessary. If the allegations were true that the Board was going to close the Bhatta and to demolish it, I think the object of the suit would certainly have been defeated by giving of a notice an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person. I do not think it was ever the intention of the Board to demolish and to remove the kiln bodily and physically. They only issued an order asking the plaintiff not to work the kiln and that order could only be enforced by launching a prosecution and forcing the will of the plaintiff by a recurring fine. This was the course obviously adopted by the Board when they launched the prosecution. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
