The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna in the case of Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee & Ors. observed that the respondents cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts.
Facts
The appellant herein (original plaintiff) initially filed the original proceedings before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar u/s 250 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (‘MPLRC’). The respondents herein (original defendants) raised the objection against the maintainability of the application u/s 250 of the MPLRC and the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar. The Tehsildar rejected the said application and held that as the question involved in the matter relates to title, hence provisions u/s 250 of the MPLRC shall not be attracted. The appellant preferred an appeal before the SDO u/s 44 of the MPLRC challenging the order passed by the Tehsildar. However, during its pendency, the appellant filed the present suit before the learned trial Court for recovery of the possession and injunction. The respondents filed an application under O7R11 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 O7R11 CPC. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred a Civil Revision Application before the High Court.
Procedural History
By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court, consequently allowed the application under O7R11 CPC, and rejected the plaint by holding that u/s 257 of the MPLRC the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. As during the pendency of the revision application, the appeal filed by the plaintiff rejecting application u/s 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 filed a review application before the High Court, which was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in the Civil Revision Application and the order passed in the Review Petition, the appellant preferred the present appeals.
Observations of the Court
“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 u/s 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.”
Judgment
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in the Civil Revision Application was set aside. The order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under O7R11 CPC is hereby restored and the suit is restored on the file of the learned trial Court. The suit must be proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits.
Case Name: Premlata @ Sunita vs Naseeb Bee & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2055-2056 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on: 23rd March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
