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

th

ON THE 5 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 1206 of 2025 SAYED ABDUL BASEER AND OTHERS Versus SHARIQ BASEER AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Advocate for respondents.

ORDER The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated

15.10.2025 passed by the trial Court thereby rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners/defendants.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected on various grounds, but the present revision is being pressed only on two grounds i.e. in absence of challenging the orders of the Revenue court the suit was not maintainable and secondly that ad valorem court fees had to be paid and valuation had to be made as per market value of the property.

3. So far as the question of suit not being maintainable in absence of challenging the orders of the revenue authorities is concerned, it is seen that the orders of Revenue authorities are orders of mutation on land. The counsel for the petitioners had vehemently relied on judgment of the coordinate Bench in Har Prasad vs. Dhannulal, reported in 2007 (1) MPLJ 337 to contend that in absence of claiming any relief to set aside the order of revenue authority and no declaration having been sought that the orders of revenue courts are null and void, the suit is not maintainable.

4. The aforesaid case is related to a case under Section 168 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "MPLRC") and as per Section 257(k) of MPLRC, the ejectment of lesser under Section 168(4) is something which is in the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities and, therefore, in absence of challenge made to orders of Revenue Courts, it could have been argued that there would be conflicting judgments of Civil Court and Revenue Court, both of which would remain operative.

5. However, in the present case, the matter relates to mutation of a land and as per Section 111 of MPLRC, all the orders of revenue authorities in the matter of mutation are subservient to final adjudication of the dispute by the Civil Court. Section 111 of MPLRC is as under:-

"111. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts.- The Civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute to which the State Government is not a party relating to any right which is recorded in the record-of-rights."

6. From a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is clear that the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to decide any dispute to which the State Government is not a party in relation to any mutation entry. Since the MPLRC itself makes the orders of Revenue Courts in the matter of mutation subservient to orders of Civil Courts, therefore, in absence of any corresponding provision in the matter of mutation, as is provided in Section 257 of MPLRC, vesting exclusive jurisdiction in certain matters to Revenue Courts, the judgement in the case of Har Prasad (supra) has no application and in absence of challenging the orders of the Revenue Courts, the suit was indeed maintainable. Therefore, this ground of the petitioner is discarded.

7. The other ground vehemently relied by counsel for the petitioners was that the suit has been filed for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was argued that as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court- Fees Act, 1870, suit for declaratory decree and consequential relief is covered and being suit for declaratory decree and consequential relief, when the said provision is read with the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, Section 8 thereof provides that certain suits including suits in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act should have the court fees value and jurisdictional value to be the same and, therefore, the plaintiff ought to have valued the plaint on ad valorem basis.

8. Upon considering the aforesaid argument