TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....struction of approach road for Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Dehradun, respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the Hospital"). Tek Chand objected to the said acquisition. In the meanwhile, on 25th May, 2005, he alienated a part of the said land in favour of appellants No. 1 and 2 by way of gift deeds. Gazette notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 16th June, 2005. 4. On 4th July, 2005, Tek Chand (respondent No. 4) preferred a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It appears that on 27th March, 2006, a clarification was issued by the State Government, respondent No. 1, to the effect that the possession of the passage to the Hospital shall remain with them; the Government would be making financial contribution in its construction and the public would be entitled to use the same. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government in the Writ Petition it was reiterated that the road was not going to be used exclusively by the Hospital. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed by Tek Chand against the said order was also dismissed on 15th September, 2006. Licence deed in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch are represented by Sri Neeraj Garg (Advocate). Since, the question involved is directly raised in the writ petition and we are hearing the writ petition, therefore, the suits as well as appeals pending before the court below are dismissed accordingly. Let this writ petition for final hearing on 03.04.2007. Learned Counsel for the Respondents may file Counter Affidavit, if any, by 03.04.2007. In the meantime, if the Respondents shall raise any construction that will be at their own risk. It is against this order of the High Court that this appeal, by special leave, has been filed. 9. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the High Court has committed a manifest error in dismissing the suits by a cryptic order without taking into consideration the nature and the purport of the two suits. Learned Counsel argued that the scope of the Writ Petition filed by the original owner of the subject land and the suits filed by the appellants was entirely different inasmuch as in the suits there is no challenge to the acquisition of the piece of land as in the case of the Writ Petition. It was pointed out that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort question for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the two suits on the sole ground that it was proposing to examine a similar issue in the Writ Petition preferred by the original owner of the land? 13. Section 9 of the Code provides that civil court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting the suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. To put it differently, as per Section 9 of the Code, in all types of civil disputes, civil courts have inherent jurisdiction unless a part of that jurisdiction is carved out from such jurisdiction, expressly or by necessary implication by any statutory provision and conferred on other Tribunal or Authority. Thus, the law confers on every person an inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature of one's choice, at one's peril, howsoever frivolous the claim may be, unless it is barred by a statute. 14. In Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. [1974]3SCR882 this Court had observed as under: There is an inherent right in every person to bring suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute one may, at ones peril, bring a suit of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& 2 of the Code, which may include the issues with regard to maintainability of the suit. If the High Court is convinced that the plaint read as a whole does not disclose any cause of action, it may reject the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. As a matter of fact, as observed by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., in T. Arivandandam (supra), if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise its power - under the said provision. And if clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X CPC. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the suit has to be disposed of either by the High Court or by the courts subordinate to it in a meaningful manner as per the procedure prescribed in the Code and not on one's own whims. 18. In the instant case, as noted above, vide order dated 20th March, 2007, the High Court transferred the two suits and the appeals to itself. On being served with a copy of the said order, the appellants immediately moved an applicatio....