IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI CIVIL REVISION No. 496 of 2024 SMT. SONAM BADJATIYA Versus MEHARBAN SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Dr. Hemnarayan Giri Advocate with Vedant Singh Thakur -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ramesh Sonvane, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 &3.

Ms. Mradula Sen - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.7/State.

Heard on: 11.09.2025 Delivered on: 30.10.2025 ORDER Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 24.05.2024 passed in Regular Civil suit No. RCS-A/306/2623 (Old Case no. UNCIV/615/2023) by the learned Learned Tenth Civil Judge, Senior Division Indore. The learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil procedure code read with Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC 1908.

2. The brief facts of the case are that late Shri Dhan Singh, son of Ganpat Singh Sisodiya (father of Respondent No. 1 and 3, and father-in-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI law of Respondent No. 2), inherited the disputed lands bearing survey no. 105/2/1 area 0.049 hectare, survey no. 109/5/1 area 0.004 hectare and survey no. 59/2/1 area 0.064 hectare situated at village Mayakhedi, Tehsil Kanadiya District Indore in a family partition and became their exclusive owner. It is alleged that respondent no. 6 took advantage of the old age and mental disorder of the late Dhan Singh in executing a registered sale deed one for Survey No. 105/2/1 (0.049 hectare) in the name of the petitioner and registered a gift deed for Survey Nos. 109/5/1 (0.004 hectare) and 59/2/1 (0.064 hectare) in his own name. Further allegation is that after death of Dhan Singh, the petitioner, in collusion with respondent no.6 and one Harikishore, threatened Respondents No.1 to 3 to evict the disputed land and attempted to take over the land illegally.Therefore, respondents no. 1 to 3 instituted a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondents no.4 to 6.

3. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, read with Order 1 Rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for the dismissal of civil suit filed by Respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner argued that the suit was not maintainable on the grounds of misjoinder of parties and causes of action (a multifarious suit) since the respondents 1 to 3 had combined two distinct claims concerning two separate parcels of land. The petitioner's land (Survey No. 105/2/1) was sold to Respondents 4 and 5, while the other lands (Survey Nos. 109/5/1 and 59/2/1) belonged to Respondent 6, who is unrelated to the first matter Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI and vice versa, wherein the trial court dismissed the petitioner's application vide order dated 24/05/2024, hence the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the settled provisions of law, persons can only be joined in one suit if their right to relief arises out of the same act or series of transactions. In the instant case, the respondent joined two different causes of action, which arose from separate transactions and were brought against separate defendants. The trial court failed to consider that the objections relating to non-joinder or misjoinder of parties must be addressed at the preliminary stage of the suit. Counsel also argued that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have not offered any explanation to the issue of misjoinder of parties in their reply so also no documents were produced by the respondents to substantiate their claim of ever residing together, as stated in the plaint. The impugned order suffers from an improper and erroneous appreciation of the facts on record, resulting in a conclusion based on surmise and conjecture. In these circumstances counsel prayed that the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 be set aside and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioner be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for