Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PARVEEN KUMAR & ORS versus SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Parveen Kumar & Ors v. Special Executive Magistrate & Ors - RSA-2918-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 733 (14 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No. 2918 of 2004

Date of Decision : February 03, 2006.

Parveen Kumar and others .... Appellants Vs.

Special Executive Magistrate & others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.R.C.Dimri, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr.Pardeep Bhandari, Advocate

for the respondents.

Mr.D.S.Jandiala, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants are unsuccessful plaintiffs in the two courts below.

A suit for permanent injunction filed by them making a grievance against the recovery of Rs.47831.25, by way of attachment and sale of property, was dismissed by the learned trial court. Appeal filed by the plaintiffs also failed before the first appellate court.

Both the courts below have found it as a fact that the aforesaid amount was sought to be recovered by the Municipal Council from the plaintiffs, on account of arrears of house tax. It was also held that a civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter and the suit was not maintainable.

Shri R.C.Dimri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that no notice was ever issued to the plaintiffs and therefore, recovery from them could not be effected.

I am afraid the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. The two courts below have found that the plaintiffs had never challenged the assessment proceedings at any point of time. No appeal under the Municipal Act had ever been filed by them. In these R.S.A.No. 2918 of 2004 : 2 :

circumstances, the plaintiffs could not be held to make any grievance against the recovery proceedings. It has also not been shown that the civil court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

Since the plaintiffs had not availed of their statutory remedies available to them, no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

February 03, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.