1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 309 of 2025 Judgment Reserved on: 28.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 15.1.2026 • Firoz Mohammad S/o Kuddus Mohammed Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Malga, Post- Bhatagaon Tahsil- Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1. Tanveer Alam S/o Mohd. Mahmud Alam Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Textile Business (Tanbir Garments Shop No-16, Mini Stadium Pratappur), R/o Village- Khorma Post - Pratappur, P.S. And Tahsil- Pratappur District- Surajpur (C.G.). 2. The Chief Executive Officer Nagar Panchayat Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.). 3. Azad Ansari S/o Gafur Ansari Aged About 38 Years R/o Amandon Post- Pratappur, P.S. And Tahsil- Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.). 4. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment 1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 20.8.2025 where by the application filed by the applicant/defendant No. 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected by the learned trial Court while holding that the matter is at the stage of evidence and as such the same cannot be decided without evidence. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pratappur, District- Surajpur, C.G. as well as the applicant herein along with one Azad Ansari and State of Chhattisgarh. 3. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit shop which has been allotted to the present applicant/defendant No. 3 as it was earlier allotted to defendant No. 2 by the Nagar Panchayat, Pratappur way back in the year 2000, however, it has been handed over to the plaintiff for running the same while executing an agreement dated 2.9.2008, the defendant No. 2 in the month of October, 2014 has told to one Maksud Alam in whose favour the shop was required to be mutation proceedings are not likely to be affected his name as such he is required to be vacated the said shop. 3 4. The plaintiff who is running his shop was assured by defendant No. 2 on the basis of agreement dated 20.10.2014 that he can run his business he will not be evicted. The plaintiff based on the aforesaid fact has running his business and his possession of the said shop. Thereafter, subsequently, the said shop was allotted to defendant No. 3/applicant subsequently eviction notices were issued to the plaintiff dated 17.8.2021 and 4.5.2022 as such cause of action arose to the plaintiff for filing the said suit as such suit has been filed. 5. It has been stated by the plaintiff that notice under Section 80 is required to be issued, however, due to urgency application under Section 80 (2) has been filed. 6. The defendant No. 3 has filed his written statement while mentioning this fact that the suit as framed and filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. 7. The other defendants has also filed their written statement while denying the plaint averments. 8. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Prattappur has stated that the plaintiff is not having any right to seek relief of injunction no agreement executed between the Nagar Panchayat, Prattappur and the plaintiff. 9. The defendant No. 3 has further filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC while stating that under the C.G. Municipalities Act, 1961 no suit is maintainable against the officers of the 4 municipalities or municipalities itself no civil suit is maintainable. It has been stated that under Section 318 and 319 (1) of the said act the civil suit is barred and it is not maintainable. Further, without any prior notice to the Nagar Panchayat, Prattappur the suit has been filed therefore too it is not maintainable. If any order has been passed in respect of allotment of the shop the same cannot be challenged in the civil suit. The suit is hit by Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC as such it is liable to be dismissed. 10. The aforesaid application was replied by the plaintiff stating that the suit is maintainable and only on the basis of technical grounds it cannot be rejected. 11. The learned trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC stating that since issues has been framed and the matter is fixed for evidence as such at this stage without taking evidence of the parties the objection as raised by the defendant No. 3 cannot be taken into consideration. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. From the perusal of the record as well as the plaint it is quite apparent that the matter relates to allotment of the shop under the Municipalities. The Nagar Panchayat, Prattappur has allotted the said shop to defendant No. 2, however, the defendant No. 2 could not run the shop and thereafter without any information or without any proper procedure the defendant No. 2 has executed some 5 documents in favour of the plaintiff and by virtue of the said documents the plaintiff came into possession of the suit property. The defendant No. 1 who is the authority to allot the said shop has not been given prior notice or information about the same. Under Section 318 and 319 (2) of the C.G. Municipalities Act, 1961, the civil suit cannot be filed against the officers of municipalities. No notice etc has been issued to the officers of municipalities which is also an embargo to file a suit or permanent injunction where the suit itself is hit by Section 318 & 319 of the said Act, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC required to be allowed as it hits jurisdictional issue and until and unless the civil Courts are having jurisdiction the suit cannot be adjudicated. 14. Section 318 in The Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 reads as under:- 318. Indemnity for acts done in good faith- No suit shall be maintainable against the Council or any of its Committees, or any Municipal Officer or servant, or any person acting under or in accordance with the direction of the Council or any of its Committees or any Municipal Officer or servant, or of a Magistrate, in respect of anything in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder. 15. Section 319 in The Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 reads as under:- 6 319. Bar of suit in absence of notice- (1)No suit shall be instituted against any Council or any Councillor, officer or servant thereof or any person acting under the direction of any such Council, Councillor, officer or servant for anything done or purporting to be done under this Act until the expiration of two months next after a notice, in writing, stating the cause of action, the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the relief which he claims, has been, in the case of a Council, delivered or left at its office, and, in the case of any such member, officer, servant or person as aforesaid, delivered to him or usual place of abode; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. (2)Every such suit shall be dismissed unless it is instituted within eight months from the date of the accrual of the alleged cause of action. (3)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any suit instituted under Section 54 of the [Specific Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877).] [Now Specific Relief Act, 1963.] 16. The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Municipality vs. Gas Authority of India Limited and others, 2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 276 (DB) it has been held that if any suit is instituted against the municipalities or against the officers of municipalities than a notice under Section 80 of the CPC is 7 required to be issued which is mandatory in nature and in absence of such notice the suit is not maintainable. The para 12 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “12. It may further be mentioned that in the suit filed by the GAIL copy of notice so filed has not been sent to the State of Madhya Pradesh. In the eyes of law, there is no notice under Section 80, CPC. Said notice has been issued to the Secretary, Housing and Environment, State of M.P., Bhopal. If we go through the notice, it is clear that said notice can not be termed as notice under Section 80, CPC. Section 80, CPC provides that no suit shall be instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of the Secretary to the Government or the Collector of the District. Sub-section (3) of Section 80 provides that no suit instituted against the Government or against public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), if in such notice-” (a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person 8 serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1), and (b) the cause of action and relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated. Thus, it is necessary to mention the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff and cause of action and, the relief claimed by the plaintiff must be specifically indicated in the notice. 17. In the present matter, the suit has been filed before the concerned civil Court for perpetual injunction in respect of municipal properties which cannot be said to be maintainable as per Section 319 of the Municipalities Act. 18. In the present matter relief of injunction was sought in respect of the property of the Municipalities, the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pratappur has been made party, however, Section 319 of the Municipalities Act has not been followed and no notice prior to institution of suit has been send to the Municipalities as such the suit is not maintainable. 19. In that view of the matter this Court is the opinion that when the suit itself is not maintainable then it cannot be directed to be proceeded further. 20. Accordingly, this Court held that the suit as framed and filed before the concerned civil Court for a relief of permanent 9 injunction is not maintainable and as such while allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC the impugned order is hereby set aside. The suit is not maintainable before the concerned trial Court and it is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the revision is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 28.11.2025 15.1.2026 - 15.1.2026 Raghu Jat