Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narmada Prasad vs Narendra @ Narayan on 15 May, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. No-2312-2018
(Narmada Prasad and others Vs Narendra @ Narayan and another)
Jabalpur Dated: 15.05.2018
Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
None for the respondents.
The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by 6 th Civil Class-II, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 275-A/2017 thereby rejecting an application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
The respondent No. 1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction. After receiving the summons, the petitioners have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and pleaded that there is no common way in the said land and the dispute regarding the way come within the jurisdiction under Sections 131 and 132 of the MPLRC. The Tehsildar is only the Competent Authority for deciding the said dispute, therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the said Civil Suit. The respondents have filed the reply to the said application. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide order dated 24.04.2018 has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by trial Court is illegal and perverse. He submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the material facts and held that the suit is maintainable. He, further, submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the nature of the dispute relates to Sections 131 and 132 of the MPLRC and the Tehsildar is only the competent authority to decide the said dispute.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioners, who are defendant in the said Civil Suit, have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the Civil Suit is barred under Sections 131 and 132 of the MPLRC as there is dispute regarding the agricultural land.
From perusal of the plaint, it reveals that the respondents have filed a Civil Suit for claiming the mandatory injunction as well as injunction by restraining the respondents from interfering into their land. The said relief which is claimed by the respondents in the plaint is related to the injunction therefore it is not covered under Sections 131 and 132 of the MPLRC. It is further to be noted that Section 131(2) of the MPLRC does not debarred from filing a Civil Suit. From perusal of the allegations made in the plaint it also appeared that there is no allegation in the plaint regarding the identification of the road or its presence on the dispute land. Therefore, suit appears for mandatory injunction as well as injunction which are not barred by Section 131 of MPLRC. Therefore, the said observation has also been made by the trial Court in its impugned order. In view of the aforesaid observation, I do not find any reason to interfere into the said writ petition.
Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.
(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge L.R. LALIT SINGH RANA 2018.05.18 12:05:11 +05'30'