Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) contending that the suit of the respondent is barred by Section 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("MLRC" for short).

4. On perusal of the prayers in the suit, it appears that the plaintiff has prayed for three reliefs: (i) restraining defendant from 32-cra132-2023.doc mutating his name in the revenue record; (ii) restraining defendant from claiming right as owner of the suit property; and

(iii) restraining defendant from entering the suit premises.

5. At this stage, it is necessary to consider Section 158 of the MLRC, which reads thus:

"158. Bar of suits -- No suit shall lie against the State Government or any officer of the State Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record or register that is maintained under this Chapter or to have any entry omitted or amended."

6. On perusal of Section 158 of the MLRC, it appears that bar created is against seeking relief against the State Government or its officers. The reliefs prayed in the first paragraph of the plaint is only against defendant. Therefore, such prayer is not prima facie barred under Section 158 of the MLRC.

7. Apart from the said contention, the remaining two prayers which are claimed by the plaintiff cannot be said to be barred by Section 158 of the MLRC as the plaintiff seeks injunction against defendant from claiming ownership right and from entering the suit premises.

8. Assuming that first prayer of the plaint is barred by Section 158 of the MLRC, remaining two prayers are not barred by Section 158 of the MLRC. It is well settled that part of the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. ( see Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors. reported in 2004 (3) SCC 137.) 32-cra132-2023.doc