GAYA SINGH Vs. RAM SAHAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have filed the present revision challenging the order dated 16.08.2016 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Amarpatan, District Satna in Civil Suit No. 163-A/2016 by which the trial Court has dismissed the application preferred by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C..

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have purchased the disputed land in the year 1946 and they got the said land mutated in their favour in the year 1962. The applicants belongs to the Aboriginal Tribe. The S.D.O had taken over the possession of the disputed land in the year 1984 in view of the amendment made in Section 170- B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a civil suit in the year 1996 challenging the order passed by the SDO. During the pendency of the civil suit, the applicants have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C stating that the said civil suit is not maintainable as per Section 257 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. The respondents have filed reply to the said application denied the allegations made therein. The learned Civil Judge vide order dated 20.01.2006 has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicants have filed a Civil Revision No. 89/2006 before this Court. The said revision was allowed by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2012 and directed the trial Court to decide the application preferred by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. on merit expeditiously in accordance with law. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the learned Civil Judge passed an order dated 16.08.2016 by which he has rejected the application preferred by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicants have filed the present revision.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. He submits that the suit is not maintainable in view of the amendment made in Section 257 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. He submits that in the present case, the amendment in Section 257 has been made in the year 1995 and the present suit is filed in the year 1996 i.e. after amendment, therefore, the same is not maintainable. He further argues that the suit has been filed claiming the relief for quashing the order of the SDO which, according to Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, can be challenged only before the revenue authorities.