IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 10 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 541 of 2025 NAGAR PARISHAD HARPALPUR AND OTHERS Versus PANKAJ RAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shyam Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The present revision under Section 115 CPC has been filed arising out of the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the trial Court in RCSA No.14A/2025, whereby rejecting the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has erred in omitting to consider the true effect and scope of Section 319(3) of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, which bars suit against a Municipality without prior notice and until the expiration of 2 months next after issuance of a notice, stating the cause of action. It is contended that the trial Court has erroneously omitted to overlook the legal position and also erroneously not considered the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona v. Ramnath, (2014) 6 SCC 394, wherein the suit has been found to be not maintainable if the relief of perpetual injunction is sought along with