Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.39 seconds)
Gandaji R. Thakor & 2 vs State Of Gujarat on 9 June, 2016 cites

Magiti Sasamal vs Pandab Bissoi on 20 September, 1961

6. Learned counsel Mr.Patel is also relying upon Page 7 of 10 HC-NIC Page 7 of 10 Created On Fri Jun 10 02:56:06 IST 2016 C/SA/28/1995 CAV JUDGMENT the decision in Magiti Sesamel Vs. Pandab Bissoi & Ors. reported AIR 1962 SC 547. However, such judgment would also not help the appellant to succeed in the appeal for the simple reason that the issue in such judgment is pertaining to exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court pursuant to Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 when Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties cannot be decided by the Revenue Officer, but only the Civil Court has jurisdiction. Therefore, when there is no such dispute or issue between the parties in the present case, even such judgment would not help the appellant. The appellant has also relied upon few more unreported judgments, which are touching the merits of the dispute between the parties, but not regarding the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, wherein in its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, this Court has held that orders of the revenue authority regarding conversion of tenure without notice to the land owner, is bad in law. However, the fact remains that in all such judgments, practically, High Court was dealing with the final order of revenue authority under its Page 8 of 10 HC-NIC Page 8 of 10 Created On Fri Jun 10 02:56:06 IST 2016 C/SA/28/1995 CAV JUDGMENT constitutional writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, but not under its appellate jurisdiction in Second Appeal u/s.100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, all such judgments are not material to be recollected here and in any case, it would not help the appellant to succeed in the present Second Appeal. As against that, perusal of impugned judgment makes it clear that the Appellate Court has rightly dealt with all the issues wherein in paragraph 1 itself, the history of dispute and litigation between the parties was mentioned in detail. Therefore, I do not want to reproduce the entire history except to recollect that the dispute between the parties has been dragged upto the High Court in first round wherein appellant has also preferred an appeal before the Secretary (Appeals) being L&D/A.687/79, which was decided on 7.3.1980 setting aside the order of the Collector, Ahmedabad and remanded the matter back to the Collector and therefore, even if thereafter, Collector has again passed any order against the appellant, then, they have a remedy to challenge such order dated 14.10.1980 before the Secretary (Appeals) by filing an appeal. If such appeal is not preferred and if order is directly Page 9 of 10 HC-NIC Page 9 of 10 Created On Fri Jun 10 02:56:06 IST 2016 C/SA/28/1995 CAV JUDGMENT challenged before the Civil Court, then, pursuant to the provision of Section 11 of the Act, it becomes clear that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit. The learned Appellate Court has righly discussed all such issues in detail and rightly decided the issues in favour of the respondent - State that the trial Judge has committed an error in holding that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide such suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 50 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1