54-SA-533-2019.doc Arjun IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.533 OF 2019 Pravin Jaywant Madye …Appellant Versus Grampanchayat Kalthar-Devali, …Respondents Through Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Kalthar-Devali, Taluka Malvan, Dist: Sindhudurg & Ors. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1211 OF 2019 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.533 OF 2019 Pravin Jaywant Madye …Applicant Versus Grampanchayat Kalthar-Devali, …Respondents Through Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Kalthar-Devali, Taluka Malvan, Dist: Sindhudurg & Ors. ______________________________________________________________ Mr. Ajay Laxman Bhise a/w Tejas Vijaykumar Dhotre, for the Appellant. Mr. Dheeraj Patil a/w Nitin Jagtap & Prachi Mulje, for Respondent No.1. Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, AGP, for the Respondent No.3-State. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 04 AUGUST 2025 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Bhise, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Kulkarni, learned AGP, for the Respondent No.3-State. 2. Mr. Bhise, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants tenders Affidavit of service. 1 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.08.07 22:20:35 +0530 54-SA-533-2019.doc 3. A learned Single Judge has framed the substantial questions of law by Order dated 12th August 2024 and issued notice for final disposal at admission stage. The said substantial questions of law are as follows :- “(i) Whether in view of the specific pleadings in paragraph 7 of the plaint, the plaint could have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) ? (ii) Whether the ground of want of clarity in the prayer for compensation, the suit could have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC ? (iii) Whether both courts erred in not appreciating the specific pleadings made in paragraph 7 of the plaint regarding issuance of notice under Section 80 of CPC ? ” 4. Perusal of the record shows that the Appellant filed Suit on 28th March 2006, seeking following reliefs: ßv- izfroknh ua-1 rs 3 ;kauh nkok feGdrhe/;s csdk;ns’khji.ks o vukf/kdkjs vfrdze.k d:u dk<ysyk lqekjs 4 ehVj :afnpk o 87 ehVj ykachP;k jLR;k[kkyhy tkxspk [kqyk dCTkk oknhl izfroknh ua-1 rs 3 ;kapsdMwu feGkok- c- lnj Hkkxkpk [kqyk dCtk izfroknh ua-1 rs 3 ;kapsdMwu feGsi;Zar njfno’kh :-100@− ¼:i;s ‘kaHkj ek=½ izek.ks oknhl izfroknhadMwu uqdlkuh olwy gksÅu feGkoh- d- ;k nkO;kpk [kpZ rdzkjh izfroknhadMwu oknhl olwy gkssÅu feGkok- M- ;k nkO;kr nq:Lrh vFkok lq/kkj.kk djko;kph >kY;kl r’kh ijokuxh oknhl vlkoh- b- brj ;ksX; rs U;k;kps gqdwe Ogkosr-Þ 5. In the said Suit, Defendant No.1 is the Grampanchayat, Kalethar- 2 54-SA-533-2019.doc Devali, Defendant No.2 is the Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg and Defendant No.3 is the State of Maharashtra. 6. As far as notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) as also notice under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the Plaintiff has contended as follows in Paragraph No.7: ß07- izfroknhus nkok feGdrhe/;s dk<ysyk jLrk o nkok feGdrhe/khy Hkkxkpk ?ksrysyk dCtk gk csdk;ns’khj vlwu izfroknhaP;k lnjP;k d`R;kl dk;|kps dks.krsgh laj{k.k ykHk.kkjs ukgh- lcc izLrqqr nkok nk[ky dj.ksiwohZ izfroknh ua-3 ;kal fnok.kh izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 ps dye 80 o eqacbZ xzkeiapk;r vf/kfu;e] 1958 [kkyhy uksVhlk izfroknhauk ns.;kph dk;|kus dks.krhgh vko’;drk ukgh- fdacgwuk oknhus ;kiwohZ fnysY;k fn- 14 04 1998 o fn-19 12 1998 jksthP;k uksVhlk ák nkO;kps Lo:i − − − − o oknh ekfxr vlysY;k nknhaps Lo:i Li”V dj.kkÚ;k vkgsr- lcc izfroknhal vk.k[kh uO;kus Lora= uksVhlk ns.;kph dks.krhgh vko’;drk ukgh-Þ (Emphasis added) Thus, it is clear that what is contended by the Plaintiff is that earlier notices dated 14th April 1998 and 19th December 1998 specify the nature of the Suit and the reliefs sought and therefore it is not necessary to issue separate notice under Section 80 of CPC and also under the Village Panchayats Act. 7. It appears that, the following objection is raised by the Superintendent, Civil Court, Senior Division, Sindhudurg at Oros on 28th March 2006: “(i) In this suit Govt. of Mah. is a party. Notice u/s. 80 CPC is not given though this suit is filed with new prayer than the previous rejected suit. (ii) From which date compensation is claimed is not clear in prayer (b) of para 9 of the plaint. 3 54-SA-533-2019.doc Necessary orders regarding numbering the suit may pleased be passed.” 8. The said objection is raised by the Registry of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Oros. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division passed Order on 29th March 2006 directing the Plaintiff to comply with the said objection within 4 days. Thereafter, on 20th June 2006, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sindhudurg at Oros passed the following Order: “Though sufficient opportunity is given to the Plaintiff to comply office objection, he failed to comply the same. Hence plaint is rejected under O VII R 11(d) of C.P.C.” Thus, what the Court has said that although sufficient opportunities have been granted to the Plaintiff, the objection is not complied with and therefore the plaint has been rejected by exercising power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. 9. However, perusal of the plaint clearly shows that it is the contention raised by the Plaintiff that notice under Section 80 of CPC is not required to be issued. For the said contention reasons are given. The second objection is concerning from which date the compensation is claimed is not clarified in prayer clause (b). All these objections are concerning the merits of the matter and in any case the same are required to be decided. 10. Thus, it is clear that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Oros 4 54-SA-533-2019.doc has committed grave illegality and irregularity in rejecting the plaint by exercising power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. 11. Accordingly, Order dated 20th June 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sindhudurg at Oros as confirmed by the learned District Judge-1, Sindhudurg at Oros by the Judgment and Decree dated 30th September 2014 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.136 of 2010 is quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, plaint dated 28th March 2006 is restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Oros. 13. The Appellant and Respondents shall remain present before the concerned Court on 15th September 2025. The concerned Court thereafter to proceed with the said Suit in accordance with law. 14. It is clarified that all contentions on merits are expressly kept open. 15. It is further clarified that the Respondents are at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking relief including the relief under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. If such application is filed, the learned Trial Court shall decide the same on its own merits by giving opportunity to all the parties. 16. In view of disposal of the Second Appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application and the same is also disposed of. 17. It is clarified that, any ad-interim order, if operating, shall stand 5 54-SA-533-2019.doc vacated forthwith. 18. Liberty is granted to the Appellant/Plaintiff to file appropriate application before the learned Trial Court seeking interim relief. If such application is filed, the same be decided on merits. 19. Accordingly, Second Appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 6