/2022 INSC 0227/
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