A Litigant Cannot Take Contradictory Stands Before Two Different Courts/Authorities: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a litigant cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts.

In this case, the plaintiff initially filed original proceedings before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar under Section 250 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The defendants raised the objection against the maintainability of the said application. The authority accepted this objection and dismissed the application. Thereafter, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Plaintiff.

Then, the plaintiff filed a suit before a Civil Court.  The defendants, this time, took a contrary stand than which was taken by them before the Revenue Authority and contended that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of plaint. Though the Trial Court dismissed this application, the High Court, allowing the Revision Petition, allowed it, thereby rejecting the plaint.

Taking note of the contradictory stand taken by the defendants, the Apex Court bench, in appeal filed by the plaintiff observed:

"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 bench observed that the High Court did not appreciate the fact that the plaintiff had  approached the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar where he was non­suited on the ground that Revenue Authority/Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with respect to title to the suit property. Allowing the appeal, the bench observed:

"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. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rightly refused to reject the plaint."

Case details

Premlata @ Sunita vs Naseeb Bee | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 317 | CA 2055­-2056 OF 2022 | 23 March 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Headnotes

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order VII Rule 11 -  M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ; Sections 250,257 -  Appeal against High Court which allowed application filed by defendants seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit before the Civil Court would be barred in view of Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Allowed - High Court did not appreciate the fact that the plaintiff had earlier approached the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar where he was non­suited on the ground that Revenue Authority/Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with respect to title to the suit property - Defendants cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment