Election of remedy barred a parallel civil suit challenging revenue orders while the same dispute remained pending in revision.

A civil suit challenging revenue orders was not maintainable where an appeal or revision on the same subject matter was already pending before the Divisional Commissioner, because a party cannot simultaneously pursue parallel and inconsistent remedies on the same cause of action. The plaint rejection request was wrongly decided by focusing only on the existence of a cause of action and not on the legal effect of the pending proceedings and the election of remedy. The plaint was therefore liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether a civil suit was maintainable when the same subject matter was already under challenge before revenue authorities and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The suit sought relief against orders of revenue authorities while an appeal or revision on the same subject matter was already pending before the Divisional Commissioner. Where a party has elected to pursue one remedy, it cannot simultaneously pursue another inconsistent or parallel remedy on the same cause and subject matter. The application for rejection of plaint was wrongly decided only on the existence of a cause of action, without addressing the effect of the pending parallel proceedings and the legal bar arising from the election of remedy.

Conclusion: The civil suit was not maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected.

---