LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Premlata @ Sunita vs. Naseeb Bee & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 335Decided 23 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 2055-2056 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

Premlata first went to the Revenue Authority (Tehsildar) under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, but the defendants (Naseeb Bee and others) objected that the Revenue Authority had no jurisdiction since the dispute was actually about title. The Tehsildar agreed and dismissed her application. Premlata then filed a civil suit for possession and injunction in the ordinary Civil Court, but this time the same defendants took the opposite position, arguing the Civil Court had no jurisdiction because Section 257 of the same Code barred civil suits on such matters. The trial court rejected this objection, but the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on revision, sided with the defendants and threw out Premlata's plaint entirely, leaving her with no forum to pursue her claim.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the defendants could not be allowed to "approbate and reprobate": that is, take one position (no jurisdiction for the Revenue Authority) to defeat the plaintiff's first case, and then take the opposite position (no jurisdiction for the Civil Court either) to defeat her second case. Having successfully argued before the Tehsildar that the matter involved title and was outside revenue jurisdiction, the defendants could not later claim the Civil Court was also barred, as this would leave the plaintiff with no remedy at all. The Court found the High Court had failed to appreciate this contradiction and had committed a grave error in rejecting the plaint. It set aside the High Court's order, restored the trial court's order (which had refused to reject the plaint), and directed the suit to proceed on its merits.

Lesson Learnt

A litigant cannot blow hot and cold (arguing one forum lacks jurisdiction to defeat a case there, and then arguing a different forum also lacks jurisdiction to defeat the plaintiff's next attempt) courts will not let such inconsistent, self-serving positions leave a genuine claimant without any remedy.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case