Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Cantonment Board, Sagar Vs. Sudhanshu
Decided On : Nov-10-1998
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Cantonment Board, Sagar Vs. Sudhanshu Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Order 39', (int) 1 => 'the Cantonment Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Cantonment Board', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Cantonment Board', (int) 4 => 'Court', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'Civil Court', (int) 9 => 'the Civil Court', (int) 10 => 'CPC', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Civil Court', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'Court' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'first', (int) 4 => 'first' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '14' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'a period of', (int) 1 => 'three months' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '500036', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 39, Rule 1 ', 'appealno' => 'C.R. No. 256 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Cantonment Board, Sagar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Cantonment Board, Sagar Vs. Sudhanshu', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.S. Koshy, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Ravish Agarwal, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-11-10', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The parties are heard finally.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit for injunction filed by the applicant/plaintiff -- Cantonment Board, they also prayed for an injunction against the non-applicant/defendant that he be restrained from raising illegal constructions. After hearing the parties, the trial Court, after appreciating the facts, rejected the application. In appeal against the said order, though the order was confirmed but the real question in controversy was not considered. The first appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal on the ground that if the applicant/Cantonment Board which has to maintain the buildings and has to grant building permissions if has power and authority to demolish the illegal constructions, then an injunction in favour of such an authority is not required. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff/applicant has filed this revision petition. I have heard the parties at length.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the opinion of this Court, the first appellate Court misdirected itself in observing that as the applicant/plaintiff is entitled to demolish illegal constructions under its statutory powers, no injunction in favour of such an authority can be granted. The Court also misdirected itself by comparing the present case with a criminal matter. The Court did not try to appreciate that an injunction cannot be granted against a person restraining him from committing an offence, but at the same time an injunction can always be granted against a person if he is proceeding to act contrary to law or is trying to make certain constructions which are not permissible, which have not been permitted or which are contrary to the granted sanction. The authority constituted under the Act can certainly maintain a suit against a tort feasor and a wrong doer. A Civil Court cannot say that as under the statutory powers the authority can undo the wrong, the Civil Court would not exercise its jurisdiction. While considering the case under the provisions of Specific Relief Act and under Order 39, Rules 1-2, CPC, the endeavour of the Court should be to see as to whether such a person has a prima facie case; in whose favour the balance of convenience is and whether non-grant of the relief prayed for would cause mischief or irreparable injury to the said person. True it is that the statutory authority which regulates buildings, building sanctions and building conditions can always demolish the illegal constructions, but it cannot be gainsaid that they are required to exercise their jurisdiction only after the wrong is done. The first and foremost question for consideration would be whether such an authority has a civil right to come to the Civil Court and whether under the law an interim order restraining the other side from doing a particular act can be granted in favour of such.a claimant/plaintiff. In the present case, the Court below was unnecessarily influenced by the provisions contained in the Cantonment Act and erred in observing that as the statutory authority can exercise its statutory powers, no injunction in favour of such a party can be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The order passed by the Court below deserves to be quashed as it is patently illegal and suffers with the latent defects. The order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate Court with a direction to reconsider the entire matter, without being unnecessarily influenced by the fact that the applicant can exercise its statutory authority, therefore, it is not entitled to an injunction. The appellate Court shall take into consideration the foundations which are necessary for grant of an injunction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 14-12-98 with a copy of this order. The appellate Court shall try to dispose of the matter finally within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties, keeping in view the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1999MP205; 1999(1)MPLJ667', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Sudhanshu', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '500036' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Cantonment Board, Sagar Vs. Sudhanshu Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Order 39', (int) 1 => 'the Cantonment Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Cantonment Board', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Cantonment Board', (int) 4 => 'Court', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'Civil Court', (int) 9 => 'the Civil Court', (int) 10 => 'CPC', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Civil Court', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'Court' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'first', (int) 4 => 'first' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '14' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'a period of', (int) 1 => 'three months' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '500036', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 39, Rule 1 ', 'appealno' => 'C.R. No. 256 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Cantonment Board, Sagar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Cantonment Board, Sagar Vs. Sudhanshu', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.S. Koshy, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Ravish Agarwal, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-11-10', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The parties are heard finally.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit for injunction filed by the applicant/plaintiff -- Cantonment Board, they also prayed for an injunction against the non-applicant/defendant that he be restrained from raising illegal constructions. After hearing the parties, the trial Court, after appreciating the facts, rejected the application. In appeal against the said order, though the order was confirmed but the real question in controversy was not considered. The first appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal on the ground that if the applicant/Cantonment Board which has to maintain the buildings and has to grant building permissions if has power and authority to demolish the illegal constructions, then an injunction in favour of such an authority is not required. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff/applicant has filed this revision petition. I have heard the parties at length.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the opinion of this Court, the first appellate Court misdirected itself in observing that as the applicant/plaintiff is entitled to demolish illegal constructions under its statutory powers, no injunction in favour of such an authority can be granted. The Court also misdirected itself by comparing the present case with a criminal matter. The Court did not try to appreciate that an injunction cannot be granted against a person restraining him from committing an offence, but at the same time an injunction can always be granted against a person if he is proceeding to act contrary to law or is trying to make certain constructions which are not permissible, which have not been permitted or which are contrary to the granted sanction. The authority constituted under the Act can certainly maintain a suit against a tort feasor and a wrong doer. A Civil Court cannot say that as under the statutory powers the authority can undo the wrong, the Civil Court would not exercise its jurisdiction. While considering the case under the provisions of Specific Relief Act and under Order 39, Rules 1-2, CPC, the endeavour of the Court should be to see as to whether such a person has a prima facie case; in whose favour the balance of convenience is and whether non-grant of the relief prayed for would cause mischief or irreparable injury to the said person. True it is that the statutory authority which regulates buildings, building sanctions and building conditions can always demolish the illegal constructions, but it cannot be gainsaid that they are required to exercise their jurisdiction only after the wrong is done. The first and foremost question for consideration would be whether such an authority has a civil right to come to the Civil Court and whether under the law an interim order restraining the other side from doing a particular act can be granted in favour of such.a claimant/plaintiff. In the present case, the Court below was unnecessarily influenced by the provisions contained in the Cantonment Act and erred in observing that as the statutory authority can exercise its statutory powers, no injunction in favour of such a party can be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The order passed by the Court below deserves to be quashed as it is patently illegal and suffers with the latent defects. The order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate Court with a direction to reconsider the entire matter, without being unnecessarily influenced by the fact that the applicant can exercise its statutory authority, therefore, it is not entitled to an injunction. The appellate Court shall take into consideration the foundations which are necessary for grant of an injunction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 14-12-98 with a copy of this order. The appellate Court shall try to dispose of the matter finally within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties, keeping in view the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1999MP205; 1999(1)MPLJ667', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Sudhanshu', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '500036' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Cantonment Board, Sagar Vs. Sudhanshu Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Order 39', (int) 1 => 'the Cantonment Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Cantonment Board', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Cantonment Board', (int) 4 => 'Court', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'Civil Court', (int) 9 => 'the Civil Court', (int) 10 => 'CPC', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Civil Court', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'Court' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'first', (int) 4 => 'first' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '14' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'a period of', (int) 1 => 'three months' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '500036', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 39, Rule 1 ', 'appealno' => 'C.R. No. 256 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Cantonment Board, Sagar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Cantonment Board, Sagar Vs. Sudhanshu', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.S. Koshy, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Ravish Agarwal, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-11-10', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The parties are heard finally.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit for injunction filed by the applicant/plaintiff -- Cantonment Board, they also prayed for an injunction against the non-applicant/defendant that he be restrained from raising illegal constructions. After hearing the parties, the trial Court, after appreciating the facts, rejected the application. In appeal against the said order, though the order was confirmed but the real question in controversy was not considered. The first appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal on the ground that if the applicant/Cantonment Board which has to maintain the buildings and has to grant building permissions if has power and authority to demolish the illegal constructions, then an injunction in favour of such an authority is not required. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff/applicant has filed this revision petition. I have heard the parties at length.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the opinion of this Court, the first appellate Court misdirected itself in observing that as the applicant/plaintiff is entitled to demolish illegal constructions under its statutory powers, no injunction in favour of such an authority can be granted. The Court also misdirected itself by comparing the present case with a criminal matter. The Court did not try to appreciate that an injunction cannot be granted against a person restraining him from committing an offence, but at the same time an injunction can always be granted against a person if he is proceeding to act contrary to law or is trying to make certain constructions which are not permissible, which have not been permitted or which are contrary to the granted sanction. The authority constituted under the Act can certainly maintain a suit against a tort feasor and a wrong doer. A Civil Court cannot say that as under the statutory powers the authority can undo the wrong, the Civil Court would not exercise its jurisdiction. While considering the case under the provisions of Specific Relief Act and under Order 39, Rules 1-2, CPC, the endeavour of the Court should be to see as to whether such a person has a prima facie case; in whose favour the balance of convenience is and whether non-grant of the relief prayed for would cause mischief or irreparable injury to the said person. True it is that the statutory authority which regulates buildings, building sanctions and building conditions can always demolish the illegal constructions, but it cannot be gainsaid that they are required to exercise their jurisdiction only after the wrong is done. The first and foremost question for consideration would be whether such an authority has a civil right to come to the Civil Court and whether under the law an interim order restraining the other side from doing a particular act can be granted in favour of such.a claimant/plaintiff. In the present case, the Court below was unnecessarily influenced by the provisions contained in the Cantonment Act and erred in observing that as the statutory authority can exercise its statutory powers, no injunction in favour of such a party can be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The order passed by the Court below deserves to be quashed as it is patently illegal and suffers with the latent defects. The order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate Court with a direction to reconsider the entire matter, without being unnecessarily influenced by the fact that the applicant can exercise its statutory authority, therefore, it is not entitled to an injunction. The appellate Court shall take into consideration the foundations which are necessary for grant of an injunction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 14-12-98 with a copy of this order. The appellate Court shall try to dispose of the matter finally within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties, keeping in view the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1999MP205; 1999(1)MPLJ667', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Sudhanshu', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '500036' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Cantonment Board, Sagar Vs. Sudhanshu Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Order 39', (int) 1 => 'the Cantonment Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Cantonment Board', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Court', (int) 3 => 'Cantonment Board', (int) 4 => 'Court', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Court', (int) 8 => 'Civil Court', (int) 9 => 'the Civil Court', (int) 10 => 'CPC', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Civil Court', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'Court' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'first', (int) 4 => 'first' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '14' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'a period of', (int) 1 => 'three months' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '500036', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 39, Rule 1 ', 'appealno' => 'C.R. No. 256 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Cantonment Board, Sagar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Cantonment Board, Sagar Vs. Sudhanshu', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'P.S. Koshy, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Ravish Agarwal, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-11-10', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The parties are heard finally.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In a suit for injunction filed by the applicant/plaintiff -- Cantonment Board, they also prayed for an injunction against the non-applicant/defendant that he be restrained from raising illegal constructions. After hearing the parties, the trial Court, after appreciating the facts, rejected the application. In appeal against the said order, though the order was confirmed but the real question in controversy was not considered. The first appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal on the ground that if the applicant/Cantonment Board which has to maintain the buildings and has to grant building permissions if has power and authority to demolish the illegal constructions, then an injunction in favour of such an authority is not required. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff/applicant has filed this revision petition. I have heard the parties at length.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the opinion of this Court, the first appellate Court misdirected itself in observing that as the applicant/plaintiff is entitled to demolish illegal constructions under its statutory powers, no injunction in favour of such an authority can be granted. The Court also misdirected itself by comparing the present case with a criminal matter. The Court did not try to appreciate that an injunction cannot be granted against a person restraining him from committing an offence, but at the same time an injunction can always be granted against a person if he is proceeding to act contrary to law or is trying to make certain constructions which are not permissible, which have not been permitted or which are contrary to the granted sanction. The authority constituted under the Act can certainly maintain a suit against a tort feasor and a wrong doer. A Civil Court cannot say that as under the statutory powers the authority can undo the wrong, the Civil Court would not exercise its jurisdiction. While considering the case under the provisions of Specific Relief Act and under Order 39, Rules 1-2, CPC, the endeavour of the Court should be to see as to whether such a person has a prima facie case; in whose favour the balance of convenience is and whether non-grant of the relief prayed for would cause mischief or irreparable injury to the said person. True it is that the statutory authority which regulates buildings, building sanctions and building conditions can always demolish the illegal constructions, but it cannot be gainsaid that they are required to exercise their jurisdiction only after the wrong is done. The first and foremost question for consideration would be whether such an authority has a civil right to come to the Civil Court and whether under the law an interim order restraining the other side from doing a particular act can be granted in favour of such.a claimant/plaintiff. In the present case, the Court below was unnecessarily influenced by the provisions contained in the Cantonment Act and erred in observing that as the statutory authority can exercise its statutory powers, no injunction in favour of such a party can be granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The order passed by the Court below deserves to be quashed as it is patently illegal and suffers with the latent defects. The order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate Court with a direction to reconsider the entire matter, without being unnecessarily influenced by the fact that the applicant can exercise its statutory authority, therefore, it is not entitled to an injunction. The appellate Court shall take into consideration the foundations which are necessary for grant of an injunction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 14-12-98 with a copy of this order. The appellate Court shall try to dispose of the matter finally within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties, keeping in view the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1999MP205; 1999(1)MPLJ667', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Sudhanshu', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '500036' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Order 39, the Cantonment Act
ORG: Cantonment Board, Court, Court, Cantonment Board, Court, Court, Court, Court, Civil Court, the Civil Court, CPC, Court, the Civil Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court
ORDINAL: first, first, first, first, first
CARDINAL: 1, 14
DATE: a period of, three months