BALDEV SINGH Vs. GUDDI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff Baldev Singh being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 21.7.2011 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Hanumangarh in civil suit No. 34/2011- Baldev Singh vs. Guddi Devi and Ors. whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction has been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on the application filed by the defendant No. 1 Smt. Guddi Devi, who at the relevant point of time was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The learned court below has dismissed the suit at the anvil of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. by assigning reasons in para 11 of the judgment that since prior mandatory notice as required under Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was not served on the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and therefore, the application filed by the defendant No. 1 Smt. Guddi Devi under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed and the suit deserves dismissal.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dtd. 21.7.2011, the appellant-plaintiff has preferred the present appeal under Section 96 C.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Mr. J.K. Bhaiya submitted that since allegations were made in the personal capacity against Smt. Guddi Devi and Gram Panchayat was not impleaded as defendant in the suit, going by the plaint's averments, the suit could not have been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and consequently, the judgment under appeal deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be sent back to the learned trial Court for deciding the same on merits.