Hon’ble Apex Court Has Observed : Litigants Cannot Be Permitted To Take Contradictory Stand Before Court

The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that a litigant cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time.

The Division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna while allowing the appeal by plaintiff, noted that defendant cannot be allowed to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/Courts.

The plaintiff had earlier initiated proceedings before the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar under Section 250 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The defendants questioned the maintainability of the said application and allowing the objection, the Authority dismissed the application. The appeal filed by the Plaintiff thereafter also stood dismissed.

Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a suit before a Civil Court. The defendants therein took a contrary stand to that before the Revenue Authority and contended that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of plaint was filed in this regard by them. The Trial Court dismissed this said application. However, the High Court, via its impugned order in the Revision Petition, allowed the same thereby dismissing the plaint of the petitioner-plaintiff.

The Court stringently ordered:

"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 Court stressed.

"The High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that when the appellant – original plaintiff approached the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar 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. Thereafter when the suit was filed and the respondents - defendants took a contrary stand that even the civil suit would be barred. In that case the original plaintiff would be remediless. 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. 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."

In view of the above, the Court set aside the impugned order.