Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Inder Kumar Jodhani vs M/S Amaltash India Ltd Thr Director ... on 30 January, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                            1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                     AT JABALPUR

                        BEFORE

            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

              ON ThE 30th OF JANUARY, 2024

              CIVIL REVISION No. 410 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

INDER    KUMAR       JODHANI     S/O
BHAGWANDAS JODHANI, AGED ABOUT
62 YEARS R/O 12-C, MP NAGAR ZONE II
BHOPAL TEH. AND DISTT. BHOPAL (M.P.)



                                               .....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR - ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ARVIND
SONI - ADVOCATE)
AND

1.  M/S AMALTASH INDIA LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SARWAR
HUSSAIN S/O SHRI ANWAR HUSSAIN
ADULT R/O SS 69, OPPOSITE SACHI
COMPLEX BOARD OFFICE BHOPAL
DISTT. BHOPAL (M.P.)
2.   STATE OF  M.P.  THROUGH
COLLECTOR BHOPAL DISTT. BHOPAL
(M.P.)
                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                                        2

(SHRI SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND

MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)

               RESERVED ON                 :       01.12.2023

               PRONOUNCED ON               :       30.01.2024

       This appeal having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for

pronouncement this day, this court passed the following:

                                   ORDER

1. Present civil revision has been filed by the petitioner/defendant being aggrieved by order dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Ist Civil Judge (Senior Division), Distt. Sehore (M.P.) in RCSA No.132/2022 in which trial Court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, filed by the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff has filed this civil suit seeking relief of the declaration of title and for quashment of order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the revenue authority allowing an application under Section 107 of MPLRC, preferred by the petitioner. A copy of plaint is hereby annexed as Annexure A-2. In Para 5 of the plaint it has been pleaded that against the aforesaid order an appeal has already been filed by the plaintiff. Further the plaint reveal that unless relief pertaining to quashment of order dated 03.12.2021 is granted, no relief of declaration of title can be 3 granted to the plaintiff; thus the suit is apparently barred by Section 257 (f) & (g) of Section 257 of the MPLRC.

3. Defendant/ petitioner has filed an application, Annexure A-3, Order 7 Rule 11 pointing out the Section 257 of MPLRC.

4. Respondent/plaintiff by way of reply, Annexure P-4 opposes the prayer made by the defendant/petitioner.

5. Trial Court by way of impugned order dated 10.05.2023 has rejected the application (Annexure A-3), holding that relief for declaration of title and permanent injunction can only be granted by Civil Court.

6. Being aggrieved of such order, petitioner has filed this civil revision and submitted that impugned order is manifestly, illegal suffers from error apparently on the record. Impugned order suffers from jurisdiction, infirmity, material irregularities and illegality. Trial Court failed to note that unless relief of quashment of order dated 03.12.2021 is granted, no cause of action arises to the plaintiff and therefore, prays to allow his petition and set aside the order of trial Court and suit may be dismissed.

7. Section 257 (f) and (g) of MPLRC reads thus:-

(f) any claim against the State Government to have any entry made in any land records or to have any such entry omitted or amended.

(g) any question regarding the demarcation of boundaries or fixing of boundary marks under Chapter X;

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 257,

(f) and (g), this civil suit is barred.

9. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads thus :

"11. Rejection of plaint-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9;

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."

10. Petitioner has filed a citation of the year 1995 Revenue Nirnaya 142 (High Court of M.P.), Sitaram v. Sooraj Bai and ors. in which coordinate Bench held that Civil Court cannot grant relief directing revenue authority to correct the map as claimed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff ought to have approached the proper forum under the provision of the MPLRC.

11. In the present case, suit was filed by the respondent for declaration and injunction of suit property and declaration of the quashment of order of the SDO. Respondent is not seeking relief that Civil Court give direction to Revenue Court to correct the map.

12. In Saleem Bhai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra and ors. 2003 (1) SCC 557 Civil Appeal No. 8518/2002 decided on 17.12.2002, Apex Court held as thus :-

"Deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11, averment in the plaint can be seen not the plea taken in the written statement."

13. So in present case, according to the pliant it was found that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction of the disputed land. So according to the averment of the plaint suit is maintainable.

14. So as per aforesaid discussion, it is found that trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11of CPC.

15. So there is no need to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. So this revision is hereby dismissed.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE VKV/-

Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VINAY VERMA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH JABALPUR, KUMAR 2.5.4.20=13db8761eb70b132ff402 73d1cd6cbbe7943345d9b89a3be5 1b2002de183fc51, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, VERMA serialNumber=24244EEED4BE5112 B2864A7944D29B2B81856B49A70 689CB14D4EBD1688FF149, cn=VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2024.02.12 19:29:07 +05'30'