ROHIT SINGH Vs. VISHAMBHAR DAYAL SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the revision petition is decided finally at the admission stage. The revision petition under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 19.3.13 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 54/11, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant seeking permanent injunction for restraining him from carrying out the construction of third floor and carrying out the construction in violation of the building bye-laws and regulations. It is alleged inter alia by the respondent-plaintiff that the petitioner defendant is carrying out construction, on the plot allotted to him by the Housing Board, in violation of the building regulations framed by the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority'). In the said suit, the petitioner sought rejection of the plaint Under Rule VII Rule 11(d) of CPC contending inter alia that in view of Section 99 of the JDA Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), jurisdiction of the civil court is barred to take cognizance of the matter required to be decided by the Authority. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court against which the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel Mr. A.K. Pareek for the petitioner pressing into service the provisions contained in Chapter-IV and Chapter VI of the said Act submitted that it is the function of the Authority to see that the buildings are elected as per the regulations and that nobody undertakes any development without the permission of the Authority. According to him, the Authority is empowered to impose penalty for any unauthorised development carried out by any person and also is empowered to remove the unauthorised development carried out by such person. Hence, according to him the subject matter of the suit being matter required to be decided by the Authority, the trial court did not have the jurisdiction.