Litigant cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before different authority/Court: SC

Litigant cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts

Cause Title: Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee and Others

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 2055-2056/2022

Quorum: Justice M.R. Shah v. Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Judgment Date: 23/03/2022

Author: Pragash B, Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

To View/Download Judgment: Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee and Others

Background of the Case

The appellant/ original plaintiff initially filed the original proceedings before the Revenue Authority/ Tehsildar under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“MPLRC”). The respondents/ defendants raised objection as to the maintainability of the application and jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority/ Tehsildar. The Tehsildar rejected the application stating that the matter relates to title and Section 250 of MPLRC is not attracted.

The appellant preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional officer under Section 44 of MPLRC and during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed the suit for recovery of the possession and injunction in the Trial Court. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on the ground that the suit before the Civil Court would be barred under Section 257 of the MPLRC. The Rejection application was rejected by the trial court.

The aggrieved respondents filed the Civil Revision Application No. 385/2019 before the Honourable Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur which has allowed the revision application and has set aside the order passed by the trial court. The High Court consequently 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.

During the pendency of the revision application, the appeal filed by the plaintiff rejecting the 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 in Review Petition No. 725/2020 before the Honourable High Court and the said review application has been dismissed. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order in Civil Revision Application and Review Petition, the appellant has preferred the present appeals before the Honourable Supreme Court of India.

Findings of the Honourable Court

The Honourable Supreme Court of India held that the respondents cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts. The respondents cannot 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 247 of the MPLRC. (Para 4)

If the submission on behalf of the respondents-defendants is accepted in that case the original plaintiff would be remediless. In any case the respondent cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate and to take just a contrary stand than taken before the Revenue Authority.(Para 4)

The Apex Court held that

“….. 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 set aside.” (Para 4)

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 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. (Para 5)

Present appeals are accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs.