KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI Vs. IIIRD ADDITIONAL MUNSIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against an ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.5.1992 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Suit No. 77 of 1986.

(3.) Brief facts for the decision of this petition are that the contesting respondent No. 2 instituted an Injunction Suit No. 77 of 1986 restraining the petitioner from realising market-fee on kattha. The case set up in the plaint was that kattha and katechu are not agricultural products and since they were manufactured items, no market fee could be realised from it. It appears that an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted on the date of institution of the suit itself i.e., on 6.2.1986. After filing of the written statement issues were struck. The petitioner raised the question of jurisdiction alleging that the market fee payable by the plaintiff-respondent was for more than Rs. one crore in a year and the suit had been valued only at Rs. 10,000, therefore, the suit was not cognizable before the Court of Munsif. It was also stated that on the date of institution of the suit market fee to the tune of more than Rs. 7 lacs was due. It is alleged that 20.7.1987 was a date fixed when the plaintiff respondent remained absent and the suit was dismissed for default. A restoration application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff respondent on 11.11.1987, when the Court issued notice on 10.2.1988. Again on 6.10.1988, it was directed that the notices be given to the counsel for the petitioner-defendant and 9.1.1989 was fixed but no notice were received by the petitioner defendant when the matter was directed to be fixed for 17.3.1989 and the plaintiff-respondent was directed to inform the petitioner defendant. However, again the matter was fixed for 12.2.1990 when the respondent-plaintiff was not present and again the application was dismissed for default. Again a restoration application was filed on 16.2.1990 which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 1990 and notices were issued fixing 2.3.1990. The restoration applications were allowed on 23.4.1990 and when the matter was taken up on 5.2.1992, then the petitioner defendant was absent and the suit was directed to proceed ex parte on 5.2.1992. On 16.3.1992 after recording the statement of Om Prakash the suit was decreed on 13.5.1992. It has also been alleged in this petition that a Writ Petition No. 8080 of 1987 was filed wherein the plaintiff-respondent was also a party and which was also based on the same ground that no mandi fee was leviable on kattha manufactured by the plaintiff respondent. From the writ petition, it appears that several writ petitions were filed on the said point. It is also alleged that one of the Writ Petition No. 3965 of 1989 was filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court where the plaintiff-respondent was arrayed as petitioner No. 3 but even though the suit was instituted in 1986, there was no mention of the pendency of the suit. It has been alleged that the Secretary of the petitioner, Sri Gajraj Singh, who was doing the pairvi on behalf of petitioners in the suit did not take proper care resulting in the ex parte decree as such, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and he was dismissed.