CHAND KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am inclined to dismiss this appeal as in my opinion, the question involved in this appeal stands answered and settled by their Lordships of Supreme Court in a decision rendered in the case of Smt. Sooraj and others v. S.D.O. Rehli and others, reported in 1995 RN 121 = AIR 1995 SC 872. This issue is decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent, thereby resulting in upholding of the judgment impugned.

(2.) THE appeal is preferred by the plaintiff under section 100 of CPC as a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1.1.1983 passed by the First Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ujjain in C.A. No. 17-A of 1979 which in turn arises out of the judgment and decree dated 26.7.1979 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Tarana, in C.S. No. 68-A/76. It was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:

(3.) THE question, whether suit is maintainable if filed under the provisions of Ceiling Act without serving a notice, cropped up before their Lordships of Supreme Court in Smt. Sooraj's case (supra). Their Lordships, in the aforesaid judgment in paragraph 5, in clear terms held that since no notice under section 80 prior to filing of the suit was served on State, the suit was not found to be maintainable. It was accordingly dismissed. This is what their Lordships held in paragraph 5 :