KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI Vs. HEINZ INDIALTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed suit No. 733 of 2000 against the revisionists. The main relief claimed in the suit is for prohibitory injunction restraining the revisionists from imposing and recovering any mandi fee of all those transactions of the opposite parties in future by which it transfers stock of ghee to its various godowns/depots located in and outside the State of U.P. not coming within the territorial jurisdiction of revisionist No. 1 for the sale of such ghee at the said places where the said godowns are situated. The revisionists, who are defendant in the suit have yet not filed written statement. They made request for rejection of the plaint under Order VII. Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC The said Application has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh by the impugned order dated 24.1.2002. Aggrieved by it. the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) I have heard Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal learned Senior Advocate for the respondent at length.

(3.) THAT in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court objections were fled which were rejected and the mandi fee has been assessed. Therefore, according to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the right to realise the tax is being challenged under the general law by the Civil Suit.