LEKHPATAS Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a suit in the nature of permanent Injunction restraining the opposite parties from Interfering into the house, 'sahan'. 'ghera', 'saria', well and the trees situated on plot No. 306. The case of the petitioner appears to be is that the respondents by setting up an impostor got a compromise filed in the proceedings for correction of papers and succeeded in getting the name of Ori expunged from the revenue records. The suit was filed by Smt. Panchi who is widow of Ori. After the death of Smt. Panchi, the petitioners were substituted as heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Panchi. During the trial of the case, a preliminary issue was framed as to whether the suit is cognizable by the civil court? The issue was answered in negative. A revision was filed which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the doors of this Court were knocked by the petitioners by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) Relying upon seven cardinal principles enunciated by a Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Dhulabhai etc. a. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1969 SC 78, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is cognizable by the civil court. The principles which have been laid down in the said case are reproduced below : 1. Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special Tribunals the civil courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil court would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of Judicial procedure. 2. Where there is an express bar of the Jurisdiction of the Court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the Jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the Tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not.

(3.) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals.