top of page
Parties cannot be permitted to take contradictory stands before two different courts/authorities
Premlata Vs Naseeb Bee and Ors
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 20552056 OF 2022
About/from the judgment:
The Supreme Court observed that parties or litigants cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts.
The Court was hearing an appeal assailing the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had allowed the application of the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908 and had rejected the plaint of the appellant.
The appellant had initially filed original proceedings before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar under Section 250 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) 1959. The respondents had raised the objection against the maintainability of that application and the jurisdiction of the authority.
The Revenue Authority/Tehsildar had accepted the objection and rejected the application of the appellant.
The appellant then moved a suit before the Civil Court. This time, the respondents took a contrary stand in comparison to what was taken before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar and contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 was moved by the respondents as a part of objection.
However, the Civil Court rejected the application of the respondents. The High Court, in an appeal preferred by the respondents had allowed the objection and had dismissed the suit of the appellant.
Aggrieved, the original plaintiff/ appellant preferred the present appeal.
The top court took objection to the contrary stand taken by the respondents before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar and the Civil Court.
"The respondents-original defendants 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-original defendants thereafter to take an objection that the suit before the Civil Court would also be barred in view of Section 257 of the MPLRC. If the submission on behalf of the respondents-defendants is accepted in that case the original plaintiff would be remediless," the Supreme Court held.
Moreover, the top Court was of the view that the High Court did not appreciate the fact that the appellant or original plaintiff had approached the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar where 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.
"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," the apex court said.
It, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order passed by the Civil Court, thereby rejecting the application of the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Read the Judgment
Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!
Formats for use
bottom of page