IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 25 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 1495 of 2010 SMT. SHAHIDA PARVEEN AND OTHERS Versus SHRI LAXMI NARAIN INDURIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mrs. Shobha Menon - Senior Advocate with Ms. Shruti Tiwari -

Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Deepesh Joshi - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.

ORDER The instant appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(U) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been filed by the appellants/defendants being aggrieved with the remand order dated th

05.02.2008 passed by the First Appellate Court i.e.10 Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Regular Civil Appeal No.135/2007.

2. Brief facts of the matter are that on 18.06.1997, respondent No.1/plaintiff got his agricultural land situated at Village- Chhan, Tehsil Huzur, Bhopal, demarcated under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPLRC') whereupon unauthorized possession of appellants was found. The respondent No.1 instead of filing an application under Section 250 of MPLRC before the Tehsildar, issued notice to the appellants to hand-over the possession Signature Not Verified vacating the land and even before the expiry of limitation period of two years, filed a suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction on 04.05.1998 before the competent Court of law. The appellants submitted their written statement along with counter claim dated 28.07.2001. The respondent No.1/plaintiff, thereafter, filed applications under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to implead other defendants as party and to amend the plaint, respectively, which were allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the appellant No.1 filed an application under VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for rejection of the plaint inter-alia on the ground of non- maintainability of the suit in the light of expressed provisions of Section 257 r/w 250 of MPLRC. The said application was allowed by the trial Court and consequently, the suit filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed on 19.04.2007. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by learned trial Court, respondent No.1 had filed a regular civil appeal wherein the order passed by the trial Court has been set-aside and matter has been remanded back for deciding on merits. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that learned appellate Court has wrongly allowed the plaintiffs' appeal ignoring the provisions of Section 250 and 257(x) of MPLRC, under which the civil court has no jurisdiction and revenue court has only exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the issue pertaining to agricultural land. The present suit, being one for recovery of possession of agricultural land, is not maintainable before the Civil Court in view of the express bar contained under Section 257 of the MPLRC. The subject-matter of the suit pertains to agricultural land, and the Signature Not Verified relief sought is for recovery of possession, which squarely falls within the jurisdiction of revenue authorities as provided under Section 250 of MPLRC, which specifically empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer to restore possession to a person who was unlawfully dispossessed of agricultural land. It is a settled position of law that when a special statute provides a specific remedy before a particular forum and expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts stands excluded. Hence, the proper remedy available to the plaintiffs lies before the Revenue Court, and the present civil suit is, therefore, barred by the provisions of Section 257 of MPLRC and the learned Civil Judge has rightly allowed the application filed by defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. With respect to above, learned appellate Court wrongly arrived at the finding that the on the basis of title, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession from the defendants by way of f