Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated when the plaintiff filed proceedings before the Revenue Authority under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The defendants raised an objection that the Revenue Authority lacked jurisdiction as the matter involved title disputes, which the Tehsildar accepted, dismissing the application. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of possession and injunction. The defendants then filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the civil suit was barred under Section 257 of the MPLRC. The trial court rejected this application, but the High Court allowed a civil revision application, quashing the trial court's order and rejecting the plaint. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the High Court correctly applied Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint based on Section 257 MPLRC, given the defendants' shifting positions on jurisdiction. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' contradictory stands—first objecting to revenue jurisdiction and then to civil jurisdiction—should not be permitted, as it would leave the plaintiff without a remedy. The Supreme Court analyzed the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, holding that parties cannot take inconsistent positions before different authorities. The Court found that the defendants' conduct in first successfully challenging revenue jurisdiction and then challenging civil jurisdiction was impermissible. It emphasized that allowing such contradictory objections would render the plaintiff remediless. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the trial court's order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and directed the civil suit to proceed on its merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the defendants could not take contradictory stands on jurisdiction before different forums. The Court restored the trial court's order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and directed the suit to proceed on merits, emphasizing that the plaintiff should not be left remediless due to inconsistent objections by the defendants (Paras 4-5). B) Land Revenue Law - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Section 257 M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - The Court addressed the bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 257 MPLRC but found it inapplicable due to the defendants' conduct. The defendants first objected to revenue authority jurisdiction under Section 250 MPLRC, leading to dismissal of those proceedings, then objected to civil court jurisdiction under Section 257 MPLRC. This contradictory approach was not permissible under the doctrine of approbate and reprobate (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint on the ground that the civil suit was barred under Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, considering the defendants' contradictory stands on jurisdiction
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 27.11.2019 in Civil Revision Application No.385 of 2019, restored the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and restored the suit to be proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevents parties from taking contradictory stands before different authorities
- jurisdiction of civil court under Section 257 MPLRC
- rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- principle against leaving a party remediless
