Supreme Court: Defendants can’t be permitted to approbate and reprobate the stand they took at different forums

JUSTICE Testifying Testimony child Witness Court Law Insider

Sakunjay Vyas

 Published on: March 24, 2022 at 11:15 IST

The two-judge bench of Justice Dr. M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna of Supreme Court overturned decision passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Bench that allowed the said Revision Application and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by the respondents and consequently allowed the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and has rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit would be barred under the provisions of Section 257 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the defendants cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate the stand they took at different forums.

The two-judge bench of Justice Dr. M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna heard an appeal against the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Bench wherein the proceedings before the revenue authority defendants took the stand that the revenue authority does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

The Tehsildar accepted the said objection and dismissed the application under Section 250 of the MPLRC by holding that as the dispute is concerning title, the Revenue Authority would not have any jurisdiction under MPLRC.

Further, this order was affirmed by the appellate authority during the pendency of the revision application before the High Court. After that, the plaintiff instituted a suit before the Civil Court, where the very defendant took the stand that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The Apex Court is of the opinion that the defendants cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate once they have objected that the revenue authority does not have the jurisdiction and the said contention has been accepted, they cannot raise the same objection at the following forum, i.e., because if the said objection is accepted this would make the plaintiff remediless

“…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… before the Civil Court it was not open for the respondents – original defendants after that to take an objection that the suit before the Civil Court would also be barred in view of Section 257 of the MPLRC… the original plaintiff would be remediless.” the Court said.

The Apex Court stated the High Court’s decision to allow the application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC and at the same time accepting the objection that the suit would be barred in view of Section 257 of the MPLRC, is erroneous and unsuitable in the eye of law.

The High Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit would be barred in view of Section 257 of the MPLRC. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.” the Court said.

As a result, the Apex Court overturned the decision passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Bench, stating that the orders passed by the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside.

The order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is hereby restored, and the suit is restored on the file of the learned trial Court. Now the suit is to be proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits.

Also Read- An Overview of IPC Section 354 (Burden of Proof in Outraging Women’s Modesty)

Related Post