SOHAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON perusal of the file, it transpires that the appellant had approached the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jind (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") by filing a suit for declaration to the effect that order of his eviction from railway quarter No. T -214 -C JHI, passed by the Railway Authorities. In the written statement, a specific objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed, evidence was let in and arguments were heard. Learned trial Court returned findings on the issue regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court against the plaintiff -appellant and dismissed the suit on merits also. The appellant went in appeal before the learned District Judge, Jind, (hereinafter referred to as, "the Appellate Court") to challenge the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1987 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing his suit. The appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.1988, set aside the findings of the learned trial Court on issue Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., on merits but upheld the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and returned a very definite finding that the matter was within the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal, constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) AS no one has put in appearance on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, in the grounds of appeal and his submissions made before the learned trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court, and find that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that allotment of quarter, in question, was cancelled by the Railway Authorities. This makes necessary a reference to Section 3(q) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which reads as under: -

(3.) IN view of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaint deserves to be returned to the plaintiff -appellant for being presented before the appropriate forum, i.e., Central Administrative Tribunal. It may be added that return of the plaint can be ordered at the appellate stage including the stage of Regular Second Appeal. Under the circumstances, the judgment and decree of both the courts below are set aside and the matter is ordered to be remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to comply with provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if needed to comply Rule 10A of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure also, but with no order as to costs.