IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI CIVIL REVISION No. 467 of 2025 KAMAL Versus JAMNALAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pramod Kumar Kale - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Dharmendra Yadav - Advocate for the respondents No.3,4,6,7,9.

Heard on: 09.10.2025 Delivered on: 11.12.2025

ORDER

This revision petition under Section 115 CPC challenges the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Depalpur, District Indore in Civil Suit No.131-A/2023, whereby the application filed by the present revisionist (defendant No.2) under Section 11 read with Section 151 CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground of res judicata has been rejected.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision are that the disputed land comprises Survey No.50 (area 3.07 acres) and Survey No.58 (area 1.88 acres), total 4.95 acres, situated at village Borsi, Tehsil Depalpur. On 24.04.1972, Shankarlal S/o Shobharam (ancestor of the present plaintiffs) executed a registered sale deed of the suit land in favour of the revisionist Kamal Kumar (acting for his mother Smt. Dhanibai). Mutation was effected in the revenue records in 1973-74. Subsequently, Shankarlal, claiming to be a tribal (Bhil), filed an application before the SDO, Depalpur alleging that the sale was void for want of prior permission of the Collector under Section 165(6) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. By order dated 31.03.1982, the SDO accepted Shankarlal’s claim that he belonged to Bhil (Scheduled Tribe) community, declared the sale illegal, and directed restoration of possession to Shankarlal. Challenging the SDO’s order dated 31.03.1982, the revisionist Kamal Kumar instituted Civil Suit No.305- A/1986 (originally 1985) before the Civil Judge, Indore against Shankarlal and the State of Madhya Pradesh, seeking:

(i) Declaration that Shankarlal belonged to Thakur (Rajput) caste and not to any Scheduled Tribe;

(ii) Consequently, permission under Section 165(6) MPLRC was not required;

(iii) The sale deed dated 24.04.1972 is valid and binding;

(iv) The SDO’s order dated 31.03.1982 be declared illegal and set aside; and (v) Permanent injunction restraining Shankarlal and the State from interfering with his possession.

3. The said suit was contested by Shankarlal, but ultimately proceeded ex-parte. By judgment and decree dated 18.09.1991 (Annexure A-1 in the trial court), the IV Civil Judge Class-I, Indore decreed the suit in favour of Kamal Kumar, holding inter alia:

o Shankarlal S/o Shobharam belonged to Thakur (Rajput)

caste and not to any Scheduled Tribe.

o Permission under Section 165(6) MPLRC was not required.

o The sale transaction was legal and valid.

o The SDO’s order dated 31.03.1982 was illegal.

o Permanent injunction was granted against Shankarlal and the State.

No appeal was preferred against this decree; it attained finality.

4. After more than three decades, the legal heirs of Shankarlal have now filed Civil Suit No.131-A/2023 seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the very same land, contending that their ancestor was a tribal (Bhil) and the sale without Collector’s permission is void. The revisionist filed an application under Section 11 CPC pleading bar of res judicata. The trial court, by the impugned order dated 06.02.2025, dismissed the application solely on the ground that in the earlier suit the relief was only of permanent injunction whereas in the present suit the plaintiffs seek declaration also, therefore the cause of action and reliefs are different and Section 11 CPC does not apply.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court grossly erred in law in holding that the principle of res judicata does not apply merely because the nomenclature of reliefs differs. The core issue in both suits — whether Shankarlal belonged to Scheduled Tribe and whether permission under Section 165(6) was required — is identical and was directly and substantially in i