2022 (3) TMI 1579 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of plaint - plaint rejected on the ground that the suit would be barred under the provisions of Section 257 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - HELD THAT - 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. 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. 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 consequently rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is hereby quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 257 of MPLRC
2. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
3. Contradictory stands by respondents
4. Review application dismissal

Jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 257 of MPLRC:
The plaintiff initially filed proceedings under Section 250 of MPLRC before the Revenue Authority, which were objected to by the defendants. The Tehsildar rejected the application, stating that the dispute related to title, hence the Revenue Authority lacked jurisdiction. The plaintiff then filed a suit before the Civil Court, where the defendants argued that the Civil Court also lacked jurisdiction under Section 257 of MPLRC. The Court held that the defendants cannot take contradictory stands before different authorities and that accepting the defendants' argument would render the plaintiff remediless. The High Court's decision to reject the plaint based on Section 257 of MPLRC was deemed erroneous, and the trial court's decision to reject the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was upheld.

Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC:
The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, citing Section 257 of MPLRC as a bar to the suit. The trial court rejected this application, stating that the defendants cannot take inconsistent positions before different authorities. The High Court, however, allowed the application and rejected the plaint, a decision overturned by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the trial court's decision was correct and the High Court's decision was unsustainable.

Contradictory stands by respondents:
The defendants initially objected to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority under Section 250 of MPLRC, leading to the rejection of the application. Subsequently, they argued against the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 257 of MPLRC. The Court held that the defendants cannot adopt inconsistent positions and must maintain a consistent stance throughout legal proceedings to prevent injustice and ensure fairness.

Review application dismissal:
The plaintiff filed a review application before the High Court, highlighting the dismissal of the appeal related to the rejection under Section 250 of MPLRC. However, the review application was also dismissed. The Supreme Court allowed the present appeals, quashed the High Court's judgment, restored the trial court's order, and directed the suit to proceed further in accordance with the law and its merits, with no costs awarded in the circumstances of the case.