Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.20552056 OF 2022
Premlata @ Sunita ..Appellant
Versus
Naseeb Bee & Ors. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Civil Revision
Application No.385 of 2019 by which the High Court has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.03.23
16:01:08 IST
Reason:
allowed the said Revision Application and has quashed and
set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court
1
dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’)
preferred by the respondents herein – original defendants
and consequently allowed the said application under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC and has rejected the plaint on the ground
that the suit would be barred under the provisions of
Section 257 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘MPLRC’), the original plaintiff has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are
as under:
2.1 That the appellant herein – original plaintiff initially
filed the original proceedings before the Revenue
Authority/Tehsildar under Section 250 of MPLRC. The
respondents herein original defendants raised the
objection against the maintainability of the application
under Section 250 of the MPLRC and the jurisdiction of the
Revenue Authority/Tehsildar. The Tehsildar rejected the
said application accepting the objection raised on behalf of
the respondents and held that as the question involved in
2
the matter relates to title, hence provisions under Section
250 of the MPLRC shall not be attracted. Thereafter the
appellant herein preferred an appeal before the SDO under
Section 44 of the MPLRC challenging the order passed by
the Tehsildar. However, during the pendency of the said
appeal, the appellant filed the present suit before the
learned trial Court for recovery of the possession and
injunction. Having been served with the notice of the suit,
the respondents – defendants filed an application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and requested to reject the plaint on
the ground that the suit before the Civil Court would be
barred considering Section 257 of the MPLRC. The learned
Civil Court rejected the said application and refused to
reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC. Against the said rejection the respondents –
defendants preferred Civil Revision Application No.385 of
2019 before the High Court.
2.2 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court
has allowed the revision application and has set aside the
order passed by the learned trial Court and consequently
3
has allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and
has rejected the plaint by holding that in view of Section
257 of the MPLRC the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is
barred.
2.3 That as during the pendency of the revision application
the appeal filed by the plaintiff rejecting application under
Section 250 of the MPLRC came to be dismissed which was
not pointed out at the time of final hearing of the revision
application by the High Court, the appellant herein filed a
review application before the High Court. The said review
application has been dismissed.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court in Civil
Revision Application No.385 of 2019 and also the order
passed in Review Petition No.725 of 2020, the original
plaintiff has preferred the present appeals.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the respective
parties at length.
4
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in
dispute that the plaintiff instituted the proceedings before
the Revenue Authority under Section 250 of the MPLRC.
These very defendants raised an objection before the
Revenue Authority that the Revenue Authority has no
jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Tehsildar accepted
the said objection and dismissed the application under
Section 250 of the MPLRC by holding that as the dispute is
with respect to title the Revenue Authority would not have
any jurisdiction under MPLRC. The said order passed by
the Tehsildar has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority
(of course during the pendency of the revision application
before the High Court). That after the Tehsildar passed an
order rejecting the application under Section 250 of the
MPLRC on the ground that the Revenue Authority would
have no jurisdiction, which was on the objection raised by
the respondents herein – original defendants, the plaintiff
instituted a suit before the Civil Court. Before the Civil
Court the respondents – original defendants just took a
contrary stand than which was taken by them before the
Revenue Authority and before the Civil Court the
5
respondents took the objection that the Civil Court would
have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The respondents
– original defendants cannot be permitted to take two
contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts.
They cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate once
the objection raised on behalf of the original defendants that
the Revenue Authority would have no jurisdiction came to
be accepted by the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar and the
proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC came to be
dismissed and thereafter when the plaintiff instituted a suit
before the Civil Court it was not open for the respondents –
original defendants thereafter to take an objection that the
suit before the Civil Court would also be barred in view of
Section 257 of the MPLRC. If the submission on behalf of
the respondents – defendants is accepted in that case the
original plaintiff would be remediless. The High Court has
not at all appreciated the fact that when the appellant –
original plaintiff approached the Revenue
Authority/Tehsildar he was nonsuited on the ground that
Revenue Authority/Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to decide
the dispute with respect to title to the suit property.
6
Thereafter when the suit was filed and the respondents
defendants took a contrary stand that even the civil suit
would be barred. In that case the original plaintiff would be
remediless. In any case the respondents – original
defendants cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate
and to take just a contrary stand than taken before the
Revenue Authority. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court rightly
rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and
rightly refused to reject the plaint. The High Court has
committed a grave error in allowing the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint on the ground
that the suit would be barred in view of Section 257 of the
MPLRC. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court dated 27.11.2019 in Civil
Revision Application No.385 of 2019 allowing the same and
setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court and
7
consequently rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The order passed by
the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC is hereby restored and the suit is restored on
the file of the learned trial Court. Now the suit to be
proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own
merits.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed. In the facts
and circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to
costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(B. V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi,
March 23, 2022
8