DEV RAJ Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MALERKOTLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 17.5.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Sangrur, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC for the following reasons as given in para 9 of the impugned order :-

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who invited my attention to Section 168 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and submitted that whenever any animal in the charge of any person dies otherwise than by slaughter either for sale or for some religious purpose, the person in charge thereof shall within twenty-four hours either convey the carcass to a place (if any) fixed by the committee under Section 154 for the disposal of the dead bodies or animals or to any place at least one mile beyond the limits of the municipality. As per these provisions, for a period of 24 hours the property i.e. skin of the animal, its muscles, meat and carcass can be retained by the in charge of the animal and thereafter the municipality has the right to remove the same in order to avoid any nuisance. For a period of 24 hours, the Municipality cannot touch the dead animal and, therefore, the plaintiff/petitioners have the right to retain the dead animals for a period of 24 hours from the time of their death. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that both the Courts fell in error while declining the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioners.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and am of the considered opinion that this revision is devoid of any merit. So far as the right of the petitioners to retain the dead animal for 24 hours from the time of its death is concerned, it is not disputed. But the intentions of the petitioner-plaintiffs are otherwise. Under the garb of the application they want to do their business of skins by bringing the dead animals from different places and to keep those dead animals at Hadda-Rori. Also there is no satisfactory evidence prima facie to show that the plaintiffs possess any milch cattle etc. An injunction which is not enforceable should not and cannot be granted in favour of the petitioners. In these circumstances, this revision petition stands disposed of with the direction to the trial Court to conclude the evidence of the plaintiffs within six months and try to dispose of the suit within nine months from the receipt of the copy of the order.