http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: TARLOK SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AMRITSAR AND ANOTHER.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/08/1986

BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1957            1986 SCR  (3) 617  1986 SCC  (4)  27        JT 1986   199  1986 SCALE  (2)299

ACT:      Punjab Municipal  Corporation Act 1976: ss. 384 and 269 and Civil  Procedure Code,  1908:  0.41,  R.  27-Proceedings before  District   Judge  in  applications,  references  and appeals under the Municipal Corporation Act-Applicability of procedures contemplated in C.P.C.      Words and Phrases:      Expression "as  far as  it  can  be  made  applicable"- Connotation of-S.  384, Punjab  Municipal  Corporation  Act, 1976.

HEADNOTE:      Section 384  of the  Punjab Municipal  Corporation  Act 1976 states that the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be  made applicable,  in the  disposal of  applications, appeals or references that may be made to the District Judge under the Act or any bye-law made thereunder.      A  dispute  between  the  Railways  and  the  Municipal Corporation resulted  in  revocation  of  the  sanction  for construction of  certain shops  situated on  the road  along side the railway line in the city of Amritsar. Subsequently, the  Municipal   Commissioner  passed   an  order  directing demolition of these shops. The appellant, who is an allottee of one  of these  shops on  licence from the Railways, being aggrieved by  that order  preferred  an  appeal  before  the District Judge  under s.  269(2) of the Act. In that appeal, the District  Judge rejected an application submitted by the appellant for  recording of  evidence. The appellant filed a writ petition against that order before the High Court which took the  view that  if the  District  Judge  so  feels  the application for  recording of  evidence could  be considered under Order 41, Rule.27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.      In the  appeal by  Special Leave  to this  Court on the question: 618 Whether in  an appeal  filed under  s. 269(2)  of the Punjab Municipal Corporation  Act 1976,  the procedure  of a  civil suit as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure will have to be followed  in view  of the  language of s. 384 of the 1976 Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    Dismissing the Appeal, the Court, ^      HELD: The  language  used  in  s.  384  of  the  Punjab Municipal Corporation  Act  1976  only  indicates  that  the procedure as  provided in  the Code  of Civil  Procedure  in regard to  a suit  will have  to be  followed in proceedings under that  Act when  the matter  goes to the District Judge either by  way of  an application,  reference or appeal. The use of  the phrase  "as far as it can be made applicable" in that section goes to show that it is not expected in any one of   the    proceedings   contemplated    therein-that   is, applications, appeals and references-to follow the procedure of a  suit technically  and strictly  in accordance with the provisions contained  in the  Code of Civil Procedure. It is only for  the purposes  of guidance  that the procedure of a suit as  Provided in  the Code  of Civil  Procedure  can  be considered. [621A-B; C-D]      In an  appropriate case  whenever  the  District  Judge feels satisfied he may give an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence  under Order  41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as  it will be open to him to apply the procedure as far  as it  can be  made  applicable  in  the  facts  and circumstances of each case. [621E-F]      It, therefore,  could not  be said  that in  an  appeal under  s.   269  sub-cl.(2)  before  a  District  Judge  the procedure of  a suit  as  provided  in  the  Code  of  Civil Procedure will be necessary. [621B-C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2843 of 1986      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  17.12.1982 of  the Punjab &  Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5548 of 1982.      V.M. Tarkunde,  Raian Karanjawala,  Mrs. M. Karanjawala and Ejaz Mazbooi for the Appellant.      Naunit Lal for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 619      OZA,J. Leave granted.      This appeal  arises out  of the  judgment of  the  High Court of  Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 5548 of 1982 dated 17.12.1982.      The appellant  is a  shopkeeper occupying  Shop No.  13 situated on  the road  along side the Railway Line, Golebagh site in  the city  of Amritsar.  There are  56  other  shops similarly situated  which are  occupied by  other  allottees like the  petitioner. The  premises  in  occupation  of  the petitioner and  other shopkeepers  are on  licences given by the Railway  since April  1981. After the sanction was given to Railway  for construction  of these  shops  some  dispute arose and  the Corporation  chose to revoke the sanction and ultimately as  a result of litigation the present petitioner and the  other shopkeepers  similarly situated  were given a notice to  show cause by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and under section 269(i) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.  This was  a composite  notice also under Section 270(1) of  the said Act. The petitioner received this notice along with  other shopkeepers  in the  first half of October 1981.      The petitioner  and other  shopkeepers submitted  their replies to the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation and the Commissioner passed an Order directing the demolition of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

shops on  9.11.1981. This order was served on the petitioner and all other shopkeepers. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order  preferred an  appeal before  the District  Judge under Section  269 sub-clause (2). In this appeal before the District Judge  the District  Judge rejected  an application submitted by the petitioner for recording of evidence and it was against this order passed by the District Judge that the petitioner filed  a writ  petition  before  the  High  Court wherein the  Division Bench  of the  High Court  took a view that if  the District  Judge so  feels the  application  for recording of  evidence could  be considered  under Order  41 Rule 27.      The only  question raised  in this  appeal is about the interpretation of Section 384. It was contended before us by the learned  counsel for  the appellant  that in view of the language of  Section 384 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976  in this  appeal before  the  District  Judge  the procedure of  a civil  suit as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure will  have to be followed and on the basis of this provision it was contended that the District Judge was bound to follow  the procedure  of a civil suit thereby framing of issues and recording of evidence 620 is necessary  whereas the learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation contended that the language of Section 384 only  provides that  in  these  proceedings  before  the District Judge  the procedure  of a  civil suit  as  far  as possible will be followed. It was, therefore, contended that the expression  "civil suit"  in  Section  384  includes  an appeal as  an  appeal  is  nothing  but  a  continuation  of proceedings of  the civil  suit and therefore the meaning of Section 384  could only  be  that  in  case  of  appeal  the procedure of  appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure shall be followed.      Learned counsel for the parties also draw our attention to various  facts and  the manner  in which  the shops  were initially allotted  and the  grievance  that  the  Municipal Corporation had  about the  allotment of  these shops to the particular persons. But in our opinion those are matters not relevant for  the purpose of decision of this case. The only question that  arises is  as to  whether in  an appeal filed under Section  269 sub-clause  (2) the  procedure of a civil suit as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure will have to be followed in view of language of Section 384 of the Punjab Municipal  Corporation  Act,  1976.  Section  384  reads  as follows:           "The procedure  provided  in  the  Code  of  Civil           Procedure, 1908,  in  regard  to  suits  shall  be           followed, as  far as it can be made applicable, in           the   disposal   of   applications,   appeals   or           references that  may be  made to  the court of the           District Judge  under this Act or any bye law made           thereunder."      This provision  talks of  the procedure provided in the Code of  Civil Procedure  in  regard  to  a  suit  shall  be followed but  it also  refers to  "as far  as it can be made applicable"  and  the  phrase  that  follows  refers  to  an application, appeal or reference.      This, therefore,  clearly indicates that in the appeal, application or  reference the  same procedure  need  not  be followed although  it talks of the procedure of a civil suit but it  is also  mentioned that  as far  as it  can be  made applicable this  goes to  show that the procedure of a civil suit will  have to  be followed if it is consistent with the proceedings pending before the District Judge.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    The suit  has not been specifically defined in the Code and from  the scheme  of the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  it appears that  an appeal  also is a continuation of the suit. The language used in Section 384 621 therefore only  indicates that the procedure as comtemplated in the  Code of  Civil Procedure will have to be followed in these proceedings under this Act when the matter goes to the District Judge either by way of an application, reference or appeal. The  procedure of  this suit  will include  even the procedure of  an appeal  and it  is because of this that the phrase as  far as it can be made applicable has been used in this section.  It, therefore, could not be contended that in an appeal under Section 269 sub-clause (2) before a District Judge the  procedure of  a suit  as provided  in the Code of Civil  Procedure  (filing  of  plaint,  written  statements, issues, recording  of evidence) will be necessary. The three proceedings contemplated  in Section  384  are  application, reference and  appeal and therefore out of the scheme of the Code of  Civil Procedure  pertaining to  the procedure  of a civil suit or an appeal the relevant provisions will have to be  applied  for  purposes  of  guidance  of  procedure  and therefore the  use of  the phrase  as far  as it can be made applicable clearly  indicates that it is not expected in any one of  these proceedings  to follow the procedure of a suit technically and  strictly in  accordance with the provisions contained in  the Code  of Civil  Procedure. It  is only for purposes of  guidance  that  the  procedure  of  a  suit  as provided in  the Code  of Civil  Procedure can be considered and it will be the discretion of the authority (the District Judge) to  apply as  far as  it  could  be  applied  in  the appropriate proceedings.  In our  view, therefore, what High Court said, appears to be proper as the High Court stated in the impugned  judgment that  if the District Judge so feels, he may  allow any  additional evidence to be led under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, it would be enough  to say  that in  an appropriate case whenever the District Judge feels satisfied he may give an opportunity to the parties  to lead  evidence as  it will  be open  to  the District Judge  to apply  the procedure  as far as it can be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of each case. We, therefore,  see no  substance in  this  appeal.  It  is, therefore, dismissed.  In the  circumstances, no order as to costs. P.S.S.                                     Appeal dismissed. 622