The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a civil suit cannot be barred under Section 257 of the MP Land Revenue Code merely because the subject matter was earlier decided by Revenue Authorities, especially if it involves adjudication of civil rights. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 407]

Emphasizing that the decision of Revenue Authorities cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent civil suit, the bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed: 

"this Court is of the considered opinion 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. The decision rendered by the Revenue Authority does not, by itself, operate as res judicata in a subsequent civil suit, particularly where the suit involves adjudication of civil rights. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is governed by Section 9 of the CPC, which confers jurisdiction upon the Civil Court to try all suits of a civil nature, except those whose cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred by law". 

A petition was filed by the petition challenging the order of the Civil Judge wherein his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which empowers a court to reject a plaint at the threshold on certain grounds, was dismissed. 

Per the facts of the case, the petitioner/defendants had obtained correction of revenue entries under Section 115 of the MP Land Revenue Code on March 10, 2023. The order was affirmed by the Collector of Damoh on May 3, 2023, and thereafter the Additional Commissioner of Sagar also affirmed the order on October 20, 2025.

Thereafter, respondents no 1 and 2 instituted the aforesaid civil suit seeking to challenge and nullify orders passed by competent revenue authorities. The petitioner thereafter invoked Order 7 Rule 11, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred under Section 257(f) of the MP Land Revenue Code. It was argued that the respondents were duly afforded an opportunity of hearing in the proceedings before revenue authorities. 

The court noted that adjudication of whether the respondents were afforded an opportunity of hearing was a question of fact and required proper appreciation of evidence. The court noted that such question ought to be adjudicated by the Civil Court and therefore cannot furnish ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11.

The court noted that the cause of action pleaded by the respondents concerns the orders directing deletion of their names from revenue records, which were passed behind their back and without affording them an opportunity of hearing. 

Therefore, the bench held that:

"Such a plea, on the face of the plaint, discloses a cause of action in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and, therefore, cannot be discarded at the threshold while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC". 

The bench further noted that the petitioner pertained to a different aspect of Section 25o of the Code wherein it was held that if an efficacious remedy is available under the provisions of the Code, a civil suit is ordinarily not maintainable. However, the bench noted that the present suit was governed by Section 257 of the Code and noted that the said suit was not barred by the said provision. 

The bench noted, "the issue involved in the present case is governed by the specific statutory bar contemplated under Section 257 of the Code. Upon a careful perusal of the provisions of Section 257 of the Code, this Court finds that the present suit is not barred by the said provision". 

Accordingly, the court held that there was no substance in the submission of the petitioner. The bench affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the petition. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Akash Singhai