Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Nikhil Sharma
For the Respondent : Ashish Saraswat

JUDGMENT/ORDER : – Shri Nikhil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ashish Saraswat, learned counsel for the respondents.

With consent heard finally.

The present civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been preferred by the petitioner, taking exception to the order dated 11-8-2021 passed by the II Civil Judge Class-II, Vidisha whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , has been rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondents/ plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant No. 1 in respect of the properties description of which is given in para 4 of the plaint. In the plaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendant No. 1/petitioner is daughter of first (divorced) wife of late Aseem Prakash Jain, who already received the permanent alimony of Rs. 4,50,000/- by virtue of order dated 1-3-2009 passed in F. A. No. 194/2007, therefore, defendant No. 1 has no right in the property of late Aseem Prakash Jain.

3. It is stated that plaintiff No. 1 is legally married wife of late Aseem Prakash Jain and plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are sons of late Aseem Prakash Jain. After the death of late Aseem Prakash Jain on 30-6-2020, petitioner/defendant No. 1, moved an application for mutation and got her name mutated over the properties in question and trying to interfere in their peaceful possession of the land, therefore, cause of action arose to the plaintiffs and they preferred the suit before the trial Court.

4. Present petitioner/defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE on the grounds that suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable because according to section 6(a) of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 since petitioner was not party in the divorce decree arrived at between the mother of petitioner and late Aseem Prakash Jain, her rights were not in existence, therefore, divorce decree does not curtail her rights. According to section 257(z-2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as “the MPLRC”), Civil Court shall not entertain any suit/claim which restricts performance of any duty imposed by this Code on any Revenue Officer or other officers appointed under this Code.

5. Further the ground of section 41(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 has also been raised that no suit restraining a person from prosecuting judicial proceedings can be filed and since Revenue Courts are not Subordinate Courts to Civil Courts, therefore, no injunction can be granted against the Revenue Courts. To bolster his submissions on all these grounds, reliance has been placed on the judgments of Apex Court in the matter of Krishna Pillai vs. Damodaran Pillai , AIR 1952 Travancore Cochin 315, Swami Atmanand vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam , (2005) 10 SCC 51 , Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr. LRs and others , AIR 2020 SC 3310 , Liverpool and London S. P. and I Assn. Ltd. vs. M. V. Sea Success I and anr. , (2004) 9 SCC 512 . Thus, prayed for setting aside the order of trial Court and allowing of application preferred under Order VII, Rule 11, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE .

6. Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs opposed the submissions and submitted that according to divorce decree, since mother of petitioner had received permanent alimony of Rs. 4,50,000/- in a divorce decree, therefore, rights of petitioner/defendant stood eclipsed. Behind the back of plaintiffs, taking advant