Smt. Pushpa Devi Shukla vs Smt. Sudarshan Gupta

Sheel Nagu, J.—The present civil revision u/s 115 of the CPC assails interlocutory order passed on 08.01.2013 passed by 10th Civil Judge Class II Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 219-A/2012 rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by the defendant No. 1/petitioner herein seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of the suit being barred by Section 257 of MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity "MPLR Code, 1959"). Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

The suit, inter alia claiming a declaratory decree of title and possession over the suit land, was filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

The defendant No. 1/petitioner herein moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the prayer for setting aside the order of the Tahsildar, Gwalior dated 24.09.2012 entering the name of defendant No. 1 as bhoomiswami of the suit land, is barred by the Section 257 of the MPLR Code as statutory remedy of appeal/revision is provided under the Code for assailing such an order.

A perusal of the prayer clause in the plaint (vide Annexure P-2) reflects that besides seeking a declaration for declaring the said order of Tahsildar null and void in the eyes of law, a decree for declaration of title has also been sought as regards the suit property, which can not be granted by the Revenue Courts, and for adjudication of which jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Civil Courts.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Bhagwandas Vs. Shriram dead through L.Rs., Page 26, a perusal of which elicits that in the said case, the plaintiff had only sought two prayers i.e. cancelling the revenue entries made in favour of the defendants thereunder and of cost, whereas no relief for grant of declaratory decree as regards title or possession was claimed. Thus, the said case cited by the petitioner involves distinct factual matrix and thus, is of no avail to the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rohini Prasad and Others Vs. Kasturchand and Another, to contend that the question of determination of title of a particular immovable property lies within the exclusive province of the Civil Court.

Considering the submissions of the rival parties, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Consequently, this Civil Revision is dismissed without any order as to cost.