The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents-original defendants cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate and to take just a contrary stand than taken before the Revenue Authority.
The appellant–original plaintiff initially filed the original proceedings before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar under Section 250 of MPLRC. The respondents 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 the matter relates to title, hence provisions under Section 250 of the MPLRC shall not be attracted. Thereafter the appellant preferred an appeal before the SDO under Section 44 of the MPLRC challenging the order passed by the Tehsildar.
The division bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B. V. Nagarathna noted that 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 respondents took the objection that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The court said that 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.
The court held that the 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 court restored the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Case title: Premlata @ Sunita v/s Naseeb Bee & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.20552056 OF 2022