DILRAJ SINGH Vs. RAMLAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 09.02.2012 passed by the 2 nd Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Satna in Civil Appeal No. 12 -A/2011 whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2007 passed in C.S. No. 80 -A/1998 by the Civil Judge Class -I, Maihar has been confirmed and affirmed and the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit in respect of the disputed property on the ground that the respondents/plaintiffs were the owners of the property and had a judgment and decree in their favour in that regard passed by the trial court on 24.03.1964 in C.S. No. 30 -A/1960 which was confirmed and affirmed in First Appeal No. 25 -A/64 dated 06.12.1967 and by the High Court in S.A. No. 99/68 by judgment and decree dated 05.03.1971.

(2.) It was alleged that after the aforesaid judgment and decree and in execution thereof the respondents/plaintiffs had also been put to the possession in the land in question but the appellant/defendant by playing fraud obtained an order from the Sub Divisional Officer, Maihar under section 170(B) of the M.P.L.R. Code whereby the Sub Divisional Officer by treating the judgment and decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs as fraudulent, directed the respondents/plaintiffs to hand over the possession to the appellant by order dated 09.07.98. The respondents/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the same filed a suit before the trial court which was decreed and judgment and decree thereof has been confirmed and affirmed by the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2012 in first appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have grossly erred in law in exercising of the jurisdiction in the matter specifically in view of the fact that the order passed by the S.D.O. which was subject matter of the suit, had been passed under section 170(B) of the M.P.L.R. Code and therefore the suit or civil proceedings against the same is not maintainable and could not have been entertained by the trial court in view of the bar contained in the provisions of section 257 of the M.P.L.R. Code. It is submitted that as the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under the aforesaid provisions of the M.P.L.R. Code, therefore, the judgment and decree of both the courts below is nonest and deserves to be set aside.