SHREE BALAJI MANDIR SANSTHAN AND OTHERS v. SANJAY LAXMAN PATHAK AND OTHERS

Discusses principles regarding jurisdiction of civil courts, interpretation of statutes, and application of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:20586
Decision Date: 04-08-2025

List of Laws

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC); Constitution of India, 1949; Indian Contract Act, 1872; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950; General Principles of Law

Legal Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): The judgment extensively discusses Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., concerning the rejection of a plaint. The applicants filed an application under this provision (Exhibit 95) seeking rejection of the plaint, which was rejected by the Trial Court. The High Court examines whether the Trial Court was correct in rejecting this application. The judgment also mentions Section 9 C.P.C., stating that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those whose cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. The court notes that judgments cited by the applicants are not helpful because they were not rendered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The judgment also refers to Section 92 C.P.C. by way of analogy to Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment refers to the argument that the respondent's claim of easementary right as Archak is against the Constitution of India and its basic structure. The applicants argued that the suit is barred under the Constitution. However, the court notes that the application Exhibit 95 does not specify any provision of the Constitution debarring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The judgment also mentions Article 141 of the Constitution, stating that the judgment of the Supreme Court is a binding precedent under this article.
Indian Contract Act, 1872: The applicants argued that the suit is barred under the provisions of the Contract Act. The court notes that the counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 23 of the Contract Act is not applicable. The court ultimately finds that the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act are not applicable in this case.
Specific Relief Act, 1963: The applicants argued that the suit is barred under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. The counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act is not applicable. The court ultimately finds that the provisions of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act are not applicable in this case.
Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950: The applicants argued that the suit is barred under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. The judgment refers to Sections 50 and 51 of the Act. The applicants contended that the suit is barred by Sections 50 and 51 of the Act. The court notes that the application Exhibit 95 does not specify any provision of the Act debarring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The court concludes that Section 51 of the Act is not attracted. The judgment also quotes paragraphs from a previous judgment discussing Section 80 and Section 93 of the Act.
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle that a party seeking to oust the jurisdiction of an ordinary civil court must establish the right to do so. It also emphasizes that provisions ousting the jurisdiction of a Civil Court must be strictly construed. The judgment also touches upon the concept of judicial discipline, particularly regarding the duty of a court to consider binding precedents.