STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 24/10/2017 passed by I Civil Judge, Class-II, Badnagar, District-Ujjain in civil suit No. 20-A/2017 whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 57(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code has been dismissed.

(2.) The respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction for declaring that the order passed by Additional Collector, Ujjain in Case No. 21-A-74/2011-12 dated 13/02/2013 is legal and valid and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division Ujjain in Case No. 249/12/13/Appeal dated 28/02/2015 and the order passed by the Board of Revenue M.P., Gwalior in Case No. 678/II-15 dated 07/12/2016 be declared as illegal and void. It is prayed that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 be declared as owner/Bhumiswami and possessee of Survey No. 52/2, admeasuring 0.77 hectare land situated in Village-Tokra, Tehsil Badnagar, District-Ujjain. The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction from restraining/dispossessing him from the aforesaid suit property. In the present case, the plaintiff has approached the Civil Court for declaration that the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in its jurisdiction be declared as null and void without assailing the same before the Competent Court of law. The order passed by the Additional Collector was set-aside by Additional Commissioner which was further affirmed by the Board of Revenue. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a suit before the trial Court relying upon Section 57 (2) of the MPLRC. Therefore, the trial Court vide order dated 24/10/2017 has dismissed the said application holding that the suit is maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner/State submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, void and perverse, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the suit was required to be dismissed. It is argued that the trial Court erred in holding that the law does not bar from filing of any civil suit whereas Section 257 of the MPLRC itself is clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining such disputes is specifically excluded. It also argued that the learned trial Court committed grave error in dismissing the application, therefore, being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision before this Court.