The Bombay High Court in Jarasand S/O Suryabhan Borkar v. Bhagwat S/O Suryakant Kale and Others deals with a Civil Revision Application challenging the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The applicant, Jarasand Suryabhan Borkar, sought dismissal of a suit filed by the respondents challenging an approach road granted by the Tahsildar to the applicant's agricultural land. The main contention was that the civil suit was barred by limitation under Section 143(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLR Code) and should be dismissed. However, the court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, holding that the civil suit was not barred, even though the respondents had exhausted their appeal and revision remedies under the MLR Code.

1. Background and Claims:

• The applicant sought an approach road to his agricultural land via an order from the Tahsildar, Latur, granted on 04.02.2019 under Section 143 of the MLR Code.
• Respondents filed a civil suit challenging the validity of this order, after their appeal to the Sub Divisional Officer was dismissed.

2. Applicant's Contentions:

• The applicant argued that the civil suit was barred under Section 143(4) of the MLR Code, as it was filed after the one-year limitation period.
• He also contended that once the appeal and revision remedies had been exhausted, the civil suit should not be entertained.

3. Respondents' Arguments:

• The respondents asserted that the civil suit was valid under Section 9 of the CPC since there was no express bar under the MLR Code.
• They also claimed the suit sought perpetual injunction, which allowed for broader remedies, not limited by the MLR Code's provisions.

4. Court's Analysis:

• The court found that Section 143(4) of the MLR Code does not bar a civil suit after an appeal or revision under Section 143(3).
• The civil suit was also deemed to be within the general limitation period of three years as per Articles 58 and 113 of the Limitation Act.

5. Ratio Decidendi:

• The court ruled that the MLR Code provides an independent, additional remedy under Section 143(4), but it does not preclude the filing of a civil suit after pursuing an appeal or revision under the MLR Code.
• The civil court retains jurisdiction under Section 9 of the CPC, even if alternative remedies have been exhausted, unless expressly barred by statute.

6. Decision:

• The court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, affirming that the civil suit was not barred by limitation and could proceed.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure: The applicant's plea for rejection of the plaint based on a limitation bar.
2. Section 143, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code: Particularly subsections (3), (4), and (5), discussing the procedure for challenging a Tahsildar’s decision.
3. Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure: Discussing the jurisdiction of civil courts.
4. Articles 58 and 113, Limitation Act, 1963: Providing a three-year limitation period for declaratory suits.

Subjects:

Civil Revision Application, Land Disputes, Limitation, Jurisdiction of Civil Courts.

Civil Procedure, Land Revenue Code, Limitation Act, Tahsildar's Orders, Perpetual Injunction.