Civil Suit Not Barred Merely Because Revenue Authorities Decided the Issue Earlier: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has held that a civil suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold merely because Revenue Authorities have already decided the same subject, refusing to disturb a trial court’s decision not to reject a plaint in a Damoh land dispute.

Justice Deepak Khot, on 6 October 2026, dismissed a civil revision filed by Rajendra Jain against Jitendra Kurmi and others. Jain had challenged the 17 June 2026 order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patharia, in RCSA No. 26/2025, which declined his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint.

The dispute concerns Khasra No. 38/1, measuring 0.13 hectare, in Village Rajwas, Damoh. Jain had obtained correction of revenue entries under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC) through an order dated 10 March 2023. The Collector, Damoh, affirmed it on 3 May 2023, and the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, did so on 30 October 2025.

Respondent nos. 1 and 2 sued for a declaration that these revenue orders were null, void and not binding on them, along with a permanent injunction restraining Jain from interfering with their alleged ownership and possession over two houses of 2,400 sq. ft. and 1,200 sq. ft., standing on Survey Nos. 38/4/2 and 38/4/1. According to them, their names were deleted from the revenue record through orders passed “behind their back and without affording them an opportunity of hearing”.

Appearing for Jain, Advocate Akash Singhai argued that the suit was expressly barred by Section 257(f) of the MPLRC, particularly as the revenue orders had attained finality and the plaintiffs had not pursued further remedies. He relied on a coordinate bench ruling in Smt. Shahida Parveen and Others vs. Shri Laxmi Narain Induria and Others, decided on 25 September 2025. The order records no appearance for the respondents.

The High Court was not persuaded. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chhotanben vs. Kirtbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, it reiterated that while deciding an Order VII Rule 11 application, “Only the averments in the plaint are germane”.

Turning to Section 257(f), the Court noted that a suit involving a claim against the State, on matters within the scope of Revenue Authorities, is barred. However, it found that “no claim has been made by the respondents/plaintiffs against the State.”

On the argument that the plaintiffs had been heard during the Section 115 proceedings, the Court said this was “essentially a question of fact and procedure”, to be decided once evidence is led. It added that the plea of being condemned unheard disclosed a cause of action on the face of the plaint and could not be discarded at the threshold.

The Court found Jain’s precedent inapplicable, as it dealt with a different aspect of Section 250 of the MPLRC. It turned to the Full Bench ruling in Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal vs. Chetu Batte, which held that a party aggrieved by a revenue court’s decision “may institute a civil suit to establish his title to the disputed land”.

Justice Khot held that “in the absence of an express statutory bar under Section 257 of the MPLRC, a civil suit is not barred merely because the subject matter has earlier been considered by the Revenue Authority.” Such a decision, the Court added, “does not, by itself, operate as res judicata” in a later civil suit.

Finding no “illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error” in the impugned order, the Court declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC and dismissed the petition as “sans merits”.

The civil suit will now continue before the trial court, where the plaintiffs’ allegations will be tested on evidence. The ruling signals that revenue orders, though final within the revenue hierarchy, do not automatically shut the Civil Court’s doors when civil rights and natural justice are in issue.

Case Title: Rajendra Jain vs. Jitendra Kurmi and Others

Date of Order: October 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Deepak Khot