PRAVIN PANDURANG PATIL Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last date, the parties were put to notice that the Appeals will be taken up for final disposal at admission stage. Accordingly, submissions were heard on 20th October, 2012 and today. The Appeals are preferred by the same original Plaintiff against the Defendant. By the impugned Judgments and Decrees, the learned Trial Judge has dismissed three separate Suits filed by the Appellant on the ground of bar of jurisdiction.

(2.) The suits relate to the contracts awarded by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The contracts were in relation to the civil work under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, Public Works Department of Government of Maharashtra. The suits were filed for recovery of amounts for the work, which is already carried out and damages on account of purported termination of contract by the Defendant. Perpetual injunction was also prayed for. It appears that in all the three suits, Applications were made by the Defendant praying for framing preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The contention of the Defendant was that under the clause 24 of the contract, a dispute redressal system has been provided for and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits has been ousted by necessary implication.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the original Plaintiff has invited our attention to the relevant clauses of the agreements. He submitted that there is no arbitration clause and even assuming that a dispute redressal mechanism is provided in the agreements, the same will not oust the inherent jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He invited our attention to the roznama of the proceedings. He submitted that in fact submissions were heard only on the applications made by the Defendants praying for framing of preliminary issue of jurisdiction and without framing preliminary issue and without giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, the learned Judge straightaway decided the preliminary issue. He pointed out roznama of the proceedings which shows that on 21st September, 2012 i.e. 17 days after the impugned Judgments and Decrees were passed, the learned Judge recorded in the roznama that the Applications made by the Defendant for framing issues were allowed. He submitted that the said order recorded in roznama shows that the preliminary issues were never framed by the learned Judge and what was pending before the learned Judge was not the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, but the applications for framing preliminary issue.