Premlata @ Sunita vs Naseeb Bee - Supreme Court Case

Premlata @ Sunita vs Naseeb Bee - Supreme Court Case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


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
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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर