NAGAR MAHAPALIKA ALLAHABAD Vs. JAI NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and Allahabad Development Authority, the defendant-applicants, Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 1 and Sri Vishnu Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 7, at length and in detail.

(2.) IN Suit No. 403 of 1980, Jai Narain Singh v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and others, giving rise to the instant revision, the defendant-applicants raised the plea that the suit was barred by the provisions of section 571 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, hereinafter called the Adhiniyam. This plea of the applicants was based on the allegation that under sub-section (i) of section 571 of the Adhiniyam no suit could be instituted against them without serving two months' prior notice upon them. The learned III Addl. Civil Judge, Allahabad, who is seized of the matter, by means of his order dated 4th September, 1989, impugned in the instant revision, rejected the aforesaid plea of the applicants. Hence this revision.

(3.) RELIANCE upon the decision in the Municipal Board Benares v. Gajadhar is misplaced. In that case the suit was not for the only relief of injunction as is the situation in the instant case. Originally, it involved reliefs of establishment of the plaintiff's title and injunction. The plaint was then amended. Even after amendment, in substance, their remained two reliefs, namely, declaration and injunction. This court, therefore, held that the injunction not being the only relief claimed service of notice as provided in section 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, which corresponds with section 571 of the Adhiniyam, was necessary.