TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents 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 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 Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LRC. The respondents herein original defendants raised the objection against the maintainability of the application under Section 250 of the MPLRC and the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar. The Tehsildar rejected the said application accepting the objection raised on behalf of the respondents and held that as the question involved in the matter relates to title, hence provisions under Section 250 of the MPLRC shall not be attracted. Thereafter the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the SDO under Section 44 of the MPLRC challenging the order passed by the Tehsildar. However, during the pendency of the said appeal, the appellant filed the present suit before the learned trial Court for recovery of the possession and inj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original plaintiff has preferred the present appeals. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 4. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the plaintiff instituted the proceedings before the Revenue Authority under Section 250 of the MPLRC. These very defendants raised an objection before the Revenue Authority that the Revenue Authority has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Tehsildar accepted the said objection and dismissed the application under Section 250 of the MPLRC by holding that as the dispute is with respect to title the Revenue Authority would not have any jurisdiction under MPLRC. The said order passed by the Tehsildar has been affirmed by the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that when the appellant original plaintiff approached the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar he was nonsuited 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 and 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 learned trial Court rightly rejected the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
