PREETPAL SINGH Vs. SATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Order 43, R. 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, against the order dated 8 -2 -1988, passed in Civil Suit No. 26 -A/87 by the Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, whereby the application under 0.39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the C. P. C. for issuance of an interim mandtory injunction.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal are that the truck no. M. B. E. 1581 of the appellant No. 2 was confiscated on 2 -2 -87 along with fire wood while unloading in the compund of M/s Bagga Timber Traders on the allegations that a forest offence has been committed under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short "the Act"). Against this order of confiscation, an appeal was preferred before the Conservator of Forest under Sec. 52 -A of the Act. The said appeal was also dismissed on 31st August, 1987. Thereafter a revision was preferred u/s 52 (B) of the Act. This revision was also dismissed on 17 -10 -87. The plaintiffs felt helpless, filed a suit for declaration and injunction, whereby the authority and jurisdiction of the officer confiscating the truck was challenged. It was also challenged that the orders passed under the Act by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional Court are non est, as the provisions of law, as contained in the Act were not followed. A declaration was sought and it was also prayed that the order of confiscation dated 4 -4 -87 be not enforced. An application under 0.39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the C. P. C was also filed, wherein an ad interim mandatory injunction was prayed for delivery of the truck. The defendants opposed the application on their main contention that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the provision of Section 52 -B and 52 -C of the Act is barred and the Civil Court is not competent either to entertain the suit or to grant any relief of injunction.

(3.) SHRI S. S. Samvatsar, learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, submitted that the scheme of the Act is such, which clearly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. He read Sec. 52 -B and 52 -C of the Act and also placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court reported in Aemadji Ibrahimji v. State of M. P. &. Ors. : 1985 JLJ 482