A civil suit is not barred merely because Revenue Authorities have already ruled on the matter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held, refusing to reject a plaint in a land dispute from Damoh.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has dismissed a civil revision against an order refusing to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that a decision of the Revenue Authorities does not by itself bar a civil suit or operate as res judicata where no express statutory bar exists [Rajendra Jain v. Jitendra Kurmi and Others].
Justice Deepak Khot decided Civil Revision No. 1021 of 2026 on 6 October 2026.
The case
On 10 March 2023, the petitioner and co-defendants obtained a correction of revenue entries under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Collector of Damoh affirmed that order on 3 May 2023, and the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, affirmed it on 20 October 2025.
The respondents, as plaintiffs, then filed a civil suit to challenge and nullify those revenue orders, alleging that their names were removed from the revenue records without notice or hearing. The petitioner, a defendant, applied under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint. The Civil Judge dismissed the application, and the petitioner came to the High Court in revision.
The contentions
The petitioner argued that Section 257(f) of the Code expressly bars the jurisdiction of the civil court because the revenue orders had become final, and that the plaintiffs had in fact been heard in the revenue proceedings. It was contended for the plaintiffs that the revenue orders were passed without notice to them and that the suit was maintainable.
ALSO READ: MP High Court Faults State For Using Suo Motu Revision To Reverse Orders It Never Appealed
What the Court said
The Court applied the settled rule that, at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint are to be considered, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chhotanben v. Kirtbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar. It noted that the plaintiffs had made no claim against the State, so the bar under Section 257 did not apply.
Whether the plaintiffs were heard in the revenue proceedings, the Court held, is a question of fact that needs evidence and must be decided by the civil court at trial. It cannot justify rejecting the plaint at the threshold. The Court observed:
Such a plea, on the face of the plaint, discloses a cause of action in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.
Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal v. Chetu Batte (AIR 1976 MP 160) and on Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which gives civil courts jurisdiction over civil suits unless barred expressly or impliedly, the Court held:
The decision rendered by the Revenue Authority does not, by itself, operate as res judicata in a subsequent civil suit.
The authority cited by the petitioner concerned a different aspect of Section 250 and did not assist him. Finding no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Civil Judge’s order, the Court dismissed the petition.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling keeps the civil court open to a party who says a revenue order was passed behind their back. A defendant cannot defeat such a suit at the threshold by pointing to the revenue hierarchy’s orders; whether a hearing was in fact given is for evidence.
The Court has not decided who owns the land. The suit now proceeds before the Civil Judge, and the plaintiffs’ allegation of non-hearing remains to be tested.
Case Title: Rajendra Jain v. Jitendra Kurmi and Others [Civil Revision No. 1021 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Deepak Khot, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur)
Date of Judgment: 6 October 2026
Appearances: For the petitioner: Advocate Akash Singhai.