Skip to content


Jayadev Padhan and ors. Vs. Managobinda Sathua - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 276 of 1966
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Ori196
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151
AppellantJayadev Padhan and ors.
RespondentManagobinda Sathua
Advocates:G. Rath, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - in my view, the contention is well founded. if ultimately in appeal the estate abolition authorities hold that the plaintiff's claim cannot be recognised, plaintiff's title in the civil suit must fail and the relief for declaration of title cannot be granted on the basis of the order of the estate abolition officer. it is now well settled that where there is no specific provision in the code prohibiting the court to act in a particular manner, the inherent powers of the court are too wide to be exercised to do justice between the parties......authorities hold that the plaintiff's claim cannot be recognised, plaintiff's title in the civil suit must fail and the relief for declaration of title cannot be granted on the basis of the order of the estate abolition officer. it would accordingly work out in the interest of justice to stay the hands of the civil court until the dispute amongst the parties is finally determined by the authorities having jurisdiction to decide and on the basis thereof the civil court can pass necessary ancillary reliefs flowing out of such recognition.section 151, c. p. c. lays down that nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court......
Judgment:
ORDER

G.K. Misra, J.

1. The suit is for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction Both the plaintiff and the defendants claim tenancy rights under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. The Estate Abolition Officer recognised plaintiff's title. Against that order an appeal is pending under Section 9 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Defendants made an application before the learned Subordinate Judge for stay of the suit under Sections 10 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, alleging that the suit should not be decided when the claims of the partieshave not yet been finally decided by the Estate Abolition Authorities. The learned Subordinate Judge disemissed this application holding thatthe Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide matters pending before the Estate Abolition Authorities and question of conflict of decisions does not arise. Mr. Rath does not press the civil revision on the basis of Section 10 C. P. C.

2. The only point canvassed by him is that under Section 151 C. P. C., the suit should be stayed until disposal of the dispute amongst the parties by the Estate Abolition Authorities. In my view, the contention is well founded. Doubtless the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide a dispute pending before the Estate Abolition Authorities and it cannot come to a conclusion contrary to the one to be held by those authorities. But the real question that faced the learned Subordinate Judge was not whether there would be conflict of decisions or existence of jurisdiction but whether, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper for the Civil Court to proceed with the suit when the decision of the Estate Abolition Collector is under challenge in appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge has not addressed himself to this aspect of the matter.

If ultimately in appeal the Estate Abolition Authorities hold that the plaintiff's claim cannot be recognised, plaintiff's title in the Civil suit must fail and the relief for declaration of title cannot be granted on the basis of the order of the Estate Abolition Officer. It would accordingly work out in the interest of justice to stay the hands of the Civil Court until the dispute amongst the parties is finally determined by the authorities having jurisdiction to decide and on the basis thereof the Civil Court can pass necessary ancillary reliefs flowing out of such recognition.

Section 151, C. P. C. lays down that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. It is now well settled that where there is no specific provision in the Code prohibiting the Court to act in a particular manner, the inherent powers of the Court are too wide to be exercised to do justice between the parties. That in similar circumstances powers under Section 151. C. P. C. can be invoked has been authoritatively pronounced by a Bench of this Court in AIR 1958 Orissa 170.

In this case the real justice is to be done between the parties only if the suit is stayed until the determination of the dispute pending before the Estate Abolition Authorities. The suit therefore be stayed under Section 151. C. P. C.

3. In the result the order of the trial court is set aside and the civil revision is allowed with costs. As there is no appearance for the other side there will be no hearing-fee.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //