In the matter of Premlata @ Sunita Vs. Naseeb Bee & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2055-2056 of 2022, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 23.03.2022
Facts of the case-
The appellant/original plaintiff has filed original proceedings before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar u/s 250 of MPLRC (reinstatement of bhoomiswami improperly dispossessed), however the Respondent/original Defendants filed an objection challenging the maintainability of the proceedings and the jurisdiction of the RA/Tehsildar. The Tehsildar rejected the said application holding that as the question involved in the matter relates to titled, hence provisions under Section 250 of the MPLRC shall not be attracted.
The Appellant thereafter filed a suit for recovery of the possession and injunction. Respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the suit on the ground that the suit before the Civil Court would be barred considering section 257 of MPLRC. This application was rejected by the trial court but was allowed by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
Observations of the Court-
The Hon’ble Apex Court noted that the Respondents took a contrary stand before the trial court than which was taken by them before Tehsildar. In the opinion of the Apex Court, the Respondents 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 thereafter to take an objection that the suit before the Civil Court would also be barred in view of Section 257 of the MPLRC.