MAHANTAYYA BASALINGAYYA KOPPAL Vs. SRI KOTTURESWAR AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above civil revision petition is filed against an order dt.7-10-1971 in O.S. No.282 of 1969 on the file of the Addl. Munsiff, Hubli recording a finding on issue No.3 in the said suit holding that the trial of the said suit was barred by the provisions of Sec.84(4) of the Mysore Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Since no decree was drawn up pursuant to the said finding, the plaintiff has filed the above civil revision petition.

(2.) The facts of the case are briefly these: The plaintiff is an agriculturist. He supplied certain quantity of agricultural produce to the first defendant firm which was carrying on the business of Commission Agents within the market area as defined by S.2(19) of the Act at Hubli. According to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,000 was due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. It may be mentioned here that defts.2 & 3 are the partners of the first deft. firm. The above suit was instituted on 2-8-69. Before instituting the above suit the plaintiff had applied to the Market Committee at Hubli on 14-6-1969 to settle the dispute. As no action appears to have been taken on the said application till 2-8-1969, the plantiff instituted the above suit on that date. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, it was contended inter alia, that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the above suit in view of the provisions of S. 84 (4) of the Act, because the plaint was not accompanied by the previous sanction of the Market Committee as required by the said provision. Thereafter on 19-8-1970 the petitioner applied to the Market Committee for the necessary sanction to institute the suit against the defendants. The sanction was accordingly accorded by the Committee on 21-10-1970 and the letter of the Market Committee accord ing sanction was produced before the lower Court on 28-10-1970. There after, the "Court below framed issues on 14-12-1970 and took up for consi deration issue No.3 which read as follows:

(3.) After hearing the parties, the Court below came to the conclusion that th sanction which had been accorded by the Market Committee was not legal and of no effect and that the trial of the suit could not be proceeded with in view of the provisions of S.84(4) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said finding recorded on issue No.3, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition Before proceeding to consider the contentions urged by the parties before me, it is necessary to set out the provisions of S.84 of the Act, which reads as follows: