KARODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT Vs. VIJAYARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above original petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order, whereby Ext.P5 application filed by the petitioner seeking to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) was rejected.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition are as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that going by the mandate of Sec. 249 of the Act, 1994, no suit or other civil proceedings against a panchayat for anything done or purporting to be done under the Act 1994 shall be instituted until the expiration of one month after notice in writing, stating the cause of action, the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the nature of the relief which is claimed or sought against the Panchayat. The petitioner contends that if the plaint does not depict that statutory notice under Sec. 249 of the Act, 1994 is served in terms of said Sec. , it is the mandatory duty of the court to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that none of the reasons stated in Ext.P7 order to reject the request of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is legally sustainable. The petitioner relies on the judgment in Prem Lala Nahata and Another v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria [2007 (2) SCC 551], Regional Transport Officer Kozhikode v. N.V. Motors service and Others [1973 KHC 352], State of Kerala and Anr v. Sankaran [1962 KHC 287], Saleem Bhai and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others[2003 (1) SCC 557], Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kammat & others [2021 (5) KHC 85], Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited v. Ashok Vidyarthi [2023 KHC 1015], Bishandayal and Sons v. State of Orissa and Others [2001 KHC 1374] and the unreported judgment of this Court in O.P.C. No. 898 of 2023 (2023:KER:57656) in support of his contention.