PREMLATA @ SUNITA versus NASEEB BEE & ORS.

PREMLATA @ SUNITA versus NASEEB BEE & ORS.

Because the respondents had successfully objected before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar that the Revenue Authority lacked jurisdiction under Section 250 MPLRC, they could not thereafter contend that the civil suit was barred by Section 257 MPLRC; allowing them to do so would render the plaintiff remediless. Therefore the trial court rightly refused to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and the High Court’s order rejecting the plaint was set aside and the trial court order restored.

Parties
Original Plaintiff/appellant: PREMLATA @ SUNITA; Original Defendants/respondents: NASEEB BEE & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside; trial court order restored
Legal Topics
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Section 250 MPLRC, Section 257 MPLRC, Jurisdiction, Approbate and Reprobate, Rejection of Plaint
Civil Procedure Revenue Law Property Law Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Section 250 MPLRC Section 257 MPLRC Jurisdiction Approbate and Reprobate +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PREMLATA @ SUNITA

Original Plaintiff/appellant

NASEEB BEE & ORS.

Original Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the civil suit is barred by Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959
  2. 2 Whether respondents could take a contrary stand before the Civil Court after successfully arguing lack of jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar under Section 250 MPLRC (approbate and reprobate)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents had successfully objected before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar that the Revenue Authority lacked jurisdiction under Section 250 MPLRC, they could not thereafter contend that the civil suit was barred by Section 257 MPLRC; allowing them to do so would render the plaintiff remediless. Therefore the trial court rightly refused to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and the High Court’s order rejecting the plaint was set aside and the trial court order restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside; trial court order restored

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2019 quashed and set aside
  • Order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is restored