STATE OF HARYANA Vs. KARANI FINANCE ENTERPRISES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order dated 28th May, 1979, passed by the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh, rejecting the contention of the defendant-petitioner that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

(2.) It would be unnecessary to detail the facts giving rise to the suit. Suffice it to say that the Estate Officer, Faridabad, a functionary under the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 (for short referred to as the 1964 Act), negotiated a sale of a plot in the urban estate of Faridabad, to the plaintiff-respondent. In periodic intervals, the plaintiff-respondent paid the consideration money in instalments; interest accrued thereon and at some instances penalties levied on late payment. For some reasons, the plaintiff-respondent surrendered the plot to the Estate Officer, which was readily accepted. On the turn of the refund money, partial payment was made by the Estate Officer and the rest was retaomed by him represented as the afore-referred to interest and the penalties charged. Such an action of retention, gasve rise to the suit for the recovery of the said 7sum and other sums, by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chandigarh. The defendant-petitioner raised a preliminary plea that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 50(2) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act 1977 (for short referred to as the 1977 Act). The learned trial Court considered the objection of the defendant-petitioner and chose to reject it. The defendant-petitioner now assails that order in revision.

(3.) The learned District Attorney, appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana-defendant, maintains that the plot undoubtedly was transferred to the plaintiff-respondent under the provisions of 1964 Act. He affirms that that Act has since been repealed and now in field is operative the 1977 Act. In accordance with the provisions of Section 30(2) and Section 50(2) of the 1977 Act, it is suggested that the authority mentioned under Section 30(2) is capable of granting relief claimed for by the plaintiff and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 50(2) stood barred, as the matter could be taken cognisance of and disposed of by the authority so indicated heretofore. He contends that the suit should have been thrown out by the Subordinate Judge being outside his jurisdiction.