MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER Vs. SHIVDATT & SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the civil revision applications arise out of the same impugned order and hence, they are taken up for hearing together and decided by this common order.

(2.) Civil Revision Application No.78 of 2019 has been filed by the original defendant No.1-Parvana Bhavana Memorial Trust and Civil Revision Application 79 of 2019 has been filed by original defendant Nos.2 and 3-Municipal Commissioner and Town Planning Department. The applicants claim that the District Court, Nagpur (Appellate Court) committed a grave error by allowing the appeal of respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) and setting aside the order of the Small Causes Court, Nagpur. The Appellate Court found that the Small Causes Court, Nagpur, could not have rejected the plaint of respondent No.1 and that the suit was maintainable before the Small Causes Court.

(3.) The principal contention raised on behalf of the applicants in these revision applications is that in view of the specific bar under section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "MRTP Act"), whereby jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred, the Small Causes Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by respondent No.1, as the subject matter of challenge in the suit was a notice issued under Section 53 of the MRTP Act, as also an order sanctioning plan submitted by the original defendant No.1. The applicants contend that any grievance pertaining to such notice and order could be raised only under the provisions of the MRTP Act and therefore, the suit was not maintainable.