Supreme Court of India
PREMLATA @ SUNITA versus NASEEB BEE & ORS. on 23 March 2022
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
A
PREMLATA @ SUNITA
v.
NASEEB BEE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2055-2056 of 2022)
BMARCH 23, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Approbate and reprobate – Plaintiff-appellant institutedproceedings before the Revenue Authority under s.250 of the MPLand Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC) – Defendants-respondentsCdisputed jurisdiction of Revenue Authority to deal with the matter –The Tehsildar dismissed application under s.250 holding that thedispute was with respect to title and, therefore, the Revenue Authoritywould not have jurisdiction under MPLRC – The said order wasaffirmed by Appellate Authority – Thereafter, appellant institutedDsuit before the civil court where respondents just took a contrarystand than what was taken by them before Revenue Authority andfiled application under Or.7 r.11 for dismissing the suit on the groundthat the civil court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit– Civil court rejected the application – However, on revision, HighCourt allowed the application under Or.7 r.11 and held that in viewEof s.257 of the MPLRC the jurisdiction of civil court is barred – Onappeal, held: Respondents cannot be permitted to take twocontradictory stands before two different authorities/courts – Theycannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate once their objectionthat the Revenue Authority would have no jurisdiction was acceptedFby Revenue Authority/Tehsildar and the proceedings under s.250of the MPLRC were dismissed – Thereafter, it was not open for therespondents to take an objection that suit before the civil courtwould also be barred in view of s.257 of the MPLRC – If thesubmission on behalf of the respondents is accepted, in that case,the appellant would be remediless – In the facts and circumstancesGof the case, civil court rightly refused to reject the plaint – Suitrestored on the file of civil court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –Or.7 r.11 – MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 – s.250.
H
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The High Court has not at all appreciated the factthat when the appellant-original plaintiff approached the RevenueAuthority/Tehsildar, he was non-suited on the ground thatRevenue Authority/Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to decide thedispute with respect to title to the suit property. Thereafter, whenthe suit was filed, the respondents-defendants took a contrarystand that even the civil suit would be barred. In that case theoriginal plaintiff would be remediless. In any case the respondents– original defendants cannot be permitted to approbate andreprobate and to take just a contrary stand than taken before theRevenue Authority. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the trial Court rightly rejected the application underOrder 7 Rule 11 CPC and rightly refused to reject the plaint.The High Court committed a grave error in allowing theapplication under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plainton the ground that the suit would be barred in view of Section257 of the MPLRC. The impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.[Para 4][830-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2055-2056 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2019 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in C.R. No.385 of 2019 and Order dated10.08.2020 in R.P. No.725 of 2020.
Ameet Deshpande, Sr. Adv., Akshat Shrivastava, Advs. for theAppellant.
Veer Vikrant Singh, DAG, Dr. J. P. Dhanda, Ms. Raj Rani, SunnyChoudhary, Sushil Tomar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradeshat Jabalpur in Civil Revision Application No.385 of 2019 by which the A
B
C
D
E
F
G
AHigh Court has allowed the said Revision Application and has quashedand set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing theapplication 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 underOrder 7 Rule 11 CPC and has rejected the plaint on the ground that theBsuit would be barred under the provisions of Section 257 of M.P. LandRevenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MPLRC’), theoriginal plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:
C2.1 That the appellant herein – original plaintiff initially filed theoriginal proceedings before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar underSection 250 of MPLRC. The respondents herein - original defendantsraised the objection against the maintainability of the application underSection 250 of the MPLRC and the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar. The Tehsildar rejected the said application accepting theDobjection raised on behalf of the respondents and held that as the questioninvolved in the matter relates to title, hence provisions under Section 250of the MPLRC shall not be attracted. Thereafter the appellant hereinpreferred an appeal before the SDO under Section 44 of the MPLRCchallenging the order passed by the Tehsildar. However, during theEpendency of the said appeal, the appellant filed the present suit beforethe 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 requestedto reject the plaint on the ground that the suit before the Civil Courtwould be barred considering Section 257 of the MPLRC. The learnedFCivil Court rejected the said application and refused to reject the plaintin exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Against the saidrejection the respondents – defendants preferred Civil Revision ApplicationNo.385 of 2019 before the High Court.
2.2 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court hasGallowed the revision application and has set aside the order passed bythe learned trial Court and consequently has allowed the application underOrder 7 Rule 11 CPC and has rejected the plaint by holding that in viewof Section 257 of the MPLRC the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.
2.3 That as during the pendency of the revision application theHappeal filed by the plaintiff rejecting application under Section 250 of the MPLRC came to be dismissed which was not pointed out at the time offinal hearing of the revision application by the High Court, the appellantherein filed a review application before the High Court. The said reviewapplication has been dismissed.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Application No.385of 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 atlength.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in disputethat the plaintiff instituted the proceedings before the Revenue Authorityunder Section 250 of the MPLRC. These very defendants raised anobjection before the Revenue Authority that the Revenue Authority hasno jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Tehsildar accepted the saidobjection and dismissed the application under Section 250 of the MPLRCby holding that as the dispute is with respect to title the Revenue Authoritywould not have any jurisdiction under MPLRC. The said order passedby the Tehsildar has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority (of courseduring the pendency of the revision application before the High Court).That after the Tehsildar passed an order rejecting the application underSection 250 of the MPLRC on the ground that the Revenue Authoritywould have no jurisdiction, which was on the objection raised by therespondents herein – original defendants, the plaintiff instituted a suitbefore the Civil Court. Before the Civil Court the respondents – originaldefendants just took a contrary stand than which was taken by thembefore the Revenue Authority and before the Civil Court the respondentstook the objection that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertainthe suit. The respondents – original defendants cannot be permitted totake two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts.They cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate once the objectionraised on behalf of the original defendants that the Revenue Authoritywould have no jurisdiction came to be accepted by the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar and the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC cameto be dismissed and thereafter when the plaintiff instituted a suit beforethe Civil Court it was not open for the respondents – original defendantsthereafter to take an objection that the suit before the Civil Court wouldalso be barred in view of Section 257 of the MPLRC. If the submission A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aon behalf of the respondents – defendants is accepted in that case theoriginal plaintiff would be remediless. The High Court has not at allappreciated the fact that when the appellant – original plaintiff approachedthe Revenue Authority/Tehsildar he was non-suited on the ground thatRevenue Authority/Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to decide the disputewith respect to title to the suit property. Thereafter when the suit wasBfiled and the respondents - defendants took a contrary stand that eventhe civil suit would be barred. In that case the original plaintiff would beremediless. In any case the respondents – original defendants cannot bepermitted to approbate and reprobate and to take just a contrary standthan taken before the Revenue Authority. Therefore, in the facts andCcircumstances of the case, the learned trial Court rightly rejected theapplication under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rightly refused to reject theplaint. The High Court has committed a grave error in allowing theapplication under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint on theground that the suit would be barred in view of Section 257 of theMPLRC. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High CourtDis unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court dated 27.11.2019 in Civil Revision Application No.385 of2019 allowing the same and setting aside the order passed by the learned
Etrial Court and consequently rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11CPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The order passed by the learnedtrial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is herebyrestored 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 itsFown merits.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed. In the facts andcircumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs.
Devika GujralG
Appeals allowed.
H