PRALHAD EKNATH FULKARI Vs. RAMKRISHNA TUKARAMJI DHAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 1 Pralhad had objected to the maintainability of the suit filed by non-applicant No. 1-Ramkrishna against himself and non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The said application Exhibit 12 came to be dismissed by the trial Court by its order dated 5-12-1981 passed below Exhibit 12 in Reg. C. S. No. 115 of 1981.

(2.) Non-applicant No. 1 Ramkrishna is the original plaintiff who filed the said suit on the ground that he is an agriculturist, that he had cultivated cotton crop and the raw cotton produce was sold by him through a broker defendant No. 2 under the superintendence of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Yavatmal-defendant No. 3. Inspite of his right to the price of the agricultural produce sold by him, the Market Committee defendant No. 3 made over the payment through Adity or broker- defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff, therefore, all the three defendants have committed a fraud upon him by issuing payment to a wring person and the plaintiff agriculturist has not been paid the price of the agricultural produce sold by him in the market committee area.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 filed application Exhibit 12 for dismissal of the suit. It was contended that under section 57 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, the plaintiffs dispute must necessarily be referred to the Tribunal constituted by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Yavatmal for recovery of the purchase price. In the said application, the defendant No. 1 referred to sections 57, 57(2) and 57(3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act and claimed that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is specifically ousted by subsection (3) of section 57 of the said Act and as such, the suit was not maintainable.