IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 28 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 36 of 2026 SMT. VIJAYLAXMI AND OTHERS Versus SMT. RAJLAXMI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Tehjeeb Khan - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Gajendra Singh Dodia - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.

16/State.

ORDER This Civil Revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Civil Suit No. RCS- A/29/2025 wherein the said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court.

0 2 . Facts of the case are that plaintiff has filed the suit RCS-

A/29/2025 claiming relief of declaration of title, partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land bearing survey No. 259/1, situated at Mandleshwar, Dist. Khargone which has been shown as agricultural land.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting attention of this Court towards pleading in para-14 of the plaint itself reveals that land in question is not agricultural land, but it is a diverted land and residential premises and colony has been developed on it, therefore, the suit has been valued accordingly by supplying necessary court fee, but the learned trial Court has not ignored these pleadings while passing the impugned order (Annexure P/1), therefore, he prays for allowing this revision and setting aside the impugned order by directing the respondent herein to value the suit accordingly by supplying requisite court fee on it.

04. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

05. It is true that in para-14 of the plaint, it has been pleaded by the plaintiff himself that this is residential premises, some plots and colony has been developed. Learned trial Court has power to get it explained from the plaintiff himself about these pleadings and specifying whether this particular land in dispute is agricultural or diverted land. Since pleadings do not anywhere show that it is a diverted land, therefore, the learned trial Court has dismissed the objection which has been taken under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

06. In the considered view of this Court, this order needs interference and, therefore, this revision is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 is hereby set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to decide the application afresh keeping in view the pleadings in para-14 of the plaint and the learned trial Court will also use its inherent power to direct the plaintiff to explain about the nature of land in question as per pleadings in para-14 of the plaint since some development has been pleaded by the plaintiff himself which cannot be done without diverting the land.

07. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed off with the aforesaid directions.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)

JUDGE soumya