Approbate and reprobate – Plaintiff-appellant instituted proceedings before the Revenue Authority under s.250 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC) – Defendants-respondents disputed jurisdiction of Revenue Authority to deal with the matter – The Tehsildar dismissed application under s.250 holding that the dispute was with respect to title and, therefore, the Revenue Authority would not have jurisdiction under MPLRC – The said order was affirmed by Appellate Authority – Thereafter, appellant instituted suit before the civil court where respondents just took a contrary stand than what was taken by them before Revenue Authority and filed application under Or.7 r.11 for dismissing the suit on the ground that the civil court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit – Civil court rejected the application – However, on revision, High Court allowed the application under Or.7 r.11 and held that in view of s.257 of the MPLRC the jurisdiction of civil court is barred – On appeal, held: Respondents cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts – They cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate once their objection that the Revenue Authority would have no jurisdiction was accepted by Revenue Authority/Tehsildar and the proceedings under s.250 of the MPLRC were dismissed – Thereafter, it was not open for the respondents to take an objection that suit before the civil court would also be barred in view of s.257 of the MPLRC – If the submission on behalf of the respondents is accepted, in that case, the appellant would be remediless – In the facts and circumstances of the case, civil court rightly refused to reject the plaint – Suit restored on the file of civil court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.7 r.11 – MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 – s.250. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that when the appellant-original plaintiff approached the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar, he was non-suited on the ground that Revenue Authority/Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with respect to title to the suit property. Thereafter, when the suit was filed, 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 trial Court rightly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rightly refused to reject the plaint. The High Court 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. [Para 4][830-A-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.