# M/S L.R. Solutions v. M/S Suro Exim Llp & Ors. 538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 537
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-29
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 1000 of 2023
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-l-r-solutions-v-m-s-suro-exim-llp-ors-538-indian-law-reports-allahabad-53730
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Ishir Sripat,
Kaushalendra Nath Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the plaintiff's Suit for cancellation of
the sale deed and for permanent injunction is
maintainable before the Civil Court?

Whether the application filed by the defendants
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code (CPC) was rightly allowed, resulting in
rejection of the plaint?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 96, 151, Order VII Rule 11, -
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections
54, 55: - First Appeal u/s 96 of CPC - filed by
the plaintiff-appellant - against the trial court's
judgment and decree - Suit was for cancellation
of a sale deed as well as for permanent
injunction
against
the
defendants
-
an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was
filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint
- plaintiff filed an objection - Trial Court -
allowed the defendants' application and rejected
the plaintiff's objection - resulted suit was
dismissed at the threshold without framing
issues or allowing evidence - instant Appeal -
Maintainability of Suit in Civil Court and Validity
of Order VII Rule 11 CPC Application - court
finds that - Plaintiff is a tenant of Defendant
No.2, not the owner - the sale deed was
executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of
Defendant No.1 - Disputes regarding tenancy
were already addressed in arbitration and are
pending before the District Judge - Plaintiff
cannot challenge the sale deed or seek
injunction based on adverse possession as he is
a tenant, not a trespasser or owner - in view of
law laid down by the Apex Court in Himalaya
Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.' Case court held that, a person
in possession as a tenant cannot claim
ownership or adverse possession hence, suit is
not maintainable in civil court and therefore,
the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
was rightly allowed, and the plaint has been
rightly rejected by the trial court - accordingly,
present first appeal is dismissed. (Para - 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Others (AIR
1977 SC 2421) - Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. v.
Md. Zahid & Another (2021 SCC Online SC 744) -
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Khaybar
Transport Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2011 All 131) - Rajasthan
High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India
(AIR 2001 SC 4160) - Society v. Ponniamman
Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706)

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and - Transfer of
Property Act, 1882

LIST OF KEYWORDS
First Appeal - Civil Suit - - Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of plaint - Objection - Plaint -
Adverse Possession - Tenant - Suppression of
Material Facts - Non-disclosure - Commercial
Court - material facts - Rejection of plaint - Sale
deed cancellation - Permanent injunction -
Tenant rights - Arbitration proceedings -
Maintainability.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order: Dated 29.05.2023 passed by Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar, rejecting
the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in
Original Suit No. 342 of 2021 filed for
Cancellation of sale deed dated 05.03.2021.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Mr. Abhishek Kumar
and Shri Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Ishir Sripat.

## Text

8 All. M/S L.R. Solutions Vs. M/S Suro Exim Llp & Ors.
537
appellant is not entitled to get the increased
value of the land, in accordance with the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel
(supra)and Harpat Singh (supra).

38. In view of the above discussion, the
appellant is entitled to get, on the basis of the
highest
exemplar-5
dated
29.9.1977,
compensation for his acquired land at the rate of
₹ 8,784.77 per acre. Issue No.2 is decided,
accordingly.

Issue No. 3

39.
From
the
discussion
made
hereinbefore, it is evident that the reference
court committed illegality in concluding that the
reference was time barred and the Collector has
awarded the correct amount of compensation to
the appellant.

40. It is evident that the amending Act No.
68 of 1984, awarding enhanced solatium at the
rate of 30%, additional compensation at the rate
of 12% per annum and granting enhanced
interest at the rate of 15% per annum came
into effect from 24.9.1984. It is also true that
in this case the award of the Collector was
made on 11.12.1980, which is prior to the
introduction of amending Bill(which was
subsequently enacted as Act No. 68 of 1984)
in the Parliament i.e. 30.4.1982. Since, the
reference
was
illegally
dismissed
on
22.1.1993, which is after the enforcement of
the amending Act No. 68 of 1984 w.e.f
24.09.1984, as such, the appellant is also
entitled to get enhanced solatium at the rate
of 30%, additional compensation at the rate
of 12% per annum and enhanced interest
under section 28 of the Act ,at the rate of
15%
per
annum,
for
the
enhanced
compensation awarded by this Court, in the
instant appeal. Issue No. 3 is decided,
accordingly.

41. In view of the above discussion, it is
evident that the Collector has committed
illegality
in
awarding
less
amount
of
compensation to the appellant and the reference
court has further aggravated that illegality, by
upholding the above compensation and also
dismissing the reference as time barred. It is
also true that since the reference court dismissed
the reference as time barred, it could not have
gone into the merits of the compensation
awarded by the Collector, but still, the reference
court erred in upholding the compensation
awarded by the Collector.

42. In view of the above analysis and the
conclusion reached while deciding the above
issues, the appellant is entitled to get
compensation for his acquired land at the rate of
₹ 8,784.77 per acre, solatium at the rate of 30%
on this amount, additional compensation at the
rate of 12% per annum and also under section
28 of the Act, enhanced interest at the rate of
15% per annum.

43. Accordingly, the instant first appeal is
allowed.
However
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear
their respective costs.

44. The office is directed to prepare the
decree accordingly.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 537
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

First Appeal No. 1000 of 2023

M/S L.R. Solutions ...Appellant
Versus
M/S Suro Exim Llp & Ors. ...Respondents
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
Abhishek Kumar, Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Ishir Sripat,
Kaushalendra Nath Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the plaintiff's Suit for cancellation of
the sale deed and for permanent injunction is
maintainable before the Civil Court?

Whether the application filed by the defendants
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code (CPC) was rightly allowed, resulting in
rejection of the plaint?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 96, 151, Order VII Rule 11, -
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections
54, 55: - First Appeal u/s 96 of CPC - filed by
the plaintiff-appellant - against the trial court's
judgment and decree - Suit was for cancellation
of a sale deed as well as for permanent
injunction
against
the
defendants
-
an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was
filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint
- plaintiff filed an objection - Trial Court -
allowed the defendants' application and rejected
the plaintiff's objection - resulted suit was
dismissed at the threshold without framing
issues or allowing evidence - instant Appeal -
Maintainability of Suit in Civil Court and Validity
of Order VII Rule 11 CPC Application - court
finds that - Plaintiff is a tenant of Defendant
No.2, not the owner - the sale deed was
executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of
Defendant No.1 - Disputes regarding tenancy
were already addressed in arbitration and are
pending before the District Judge - Plaintiff
cannot challenge the sale deed or seek
injunction based on adverse possession as he is
a tenant, not a trespasser or owner - in view of
law laid down by the Apex Court in Himalaya
Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.' Case court held that, a person
in possession as a tenant cannot claim
ownership or adverse possession hence, suit is
not maintainable in civil court and therefore,
the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
was rightly allowed, and the plaint has been
rightly rejected by the trial court - accordingly,
present first appeal is dismissed. (Para - 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Others (AIR
1977 SC 2421) - Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. v.
Md. Zahid & Another (2021 SCC Online SC 744) -
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Khaybar
Transport Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2011 All 131) - Rajasthan
High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India
(AIR 2001 SC 4160) - Society v. Ponniamman
Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706)

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and - Transfer of
Property Act, 1882

LIST OF KEYWORDS
First Appeal - Civil Suit - - Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of plaint - Objection - Plaint -
Adverse Possession - Tenant - Suppression of
Material Facts - Non-disclosure - Commercial
Court - material facts - Rejection of plaint - Sale
deed cancellation - Permanent injunction -
Tenant rights - Arbitration proceedings -
Maintainability.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order: Dated 29.05.2023 passed by Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar, rejecting
the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in
Original Suit No. 342 of 2021 filed for
Cancellation of sale deed dated 05.03.2021.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Mr. Abhishek Kumar
and Shri Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Ishir Sripat.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar and Shri
Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay learned counsel
for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri Ishir
Sripat, learned counsel for the defendantrespondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Brief of the case are that plaintiffappellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale
8 All. M/S L.R. Solutions Vs. M/S Suro Exim Llp & Ors.
539
dead as well as permanent injunction
before Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Gautam Budh Nagar impleading three
defendants, who are respondent Nos.1, 2
and 3 of the present First Appeal. The
aforementioned suit was registered as
original suit No.342 of 2021. Defendant
Nos. 1 and 2 have put in appearance in the
aforementioned
suit
and
filed
an
application under order VII Rule 11 of
Civil Procedure Code), 1908 (hereinafter
referred
to
as
'the
C.P.C.'),
the
application was numbered as paper
no.30-Ga. Against the application no.30Ga filed by defendant-respondent nos.1
and 2, an objection was filed by
plaintiff-appellant, which was numbered
as paper no.39 Ka. The trial court heard
the application no.30-Ga filed under
Order-VII Rule-11 C.P.C.as well as
objection paper no.39 ka filed by
plaintiff and vide judgement and order
dated 29.5.2023 allowed the application
No. 30-Ga filed by defendant under
Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and rejected
the plaintiff's objection filed by plaintiffappellant. Hence, this first appeal under
Section-96 of C.P.C. on behalf of
plaintiff for following relief:-

" The relief sought by this
Hon'ble Court is that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to set aside the
judgment dated 29.05.2023 and decree
dated ?...2023 passed by Civil Judge,
(Senior Division) Gautam Buddh Nagar
in Civil Suit No. 342 of 2021 (M/S L.R.
Print Solutions Vs. M/S SURO EXIM
LLP and others)."

3. This Court admitted the first appeal
on 10.04.2024 and summoned the record of
the trial court. The defendants were already
appearing
before
this
Court
through
counsel.

4. In pursuance of the order of this
Court dated 10.04.2024 record of the trial
court has been received to this court.

5. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffappellant submitted that trial court has
committed the manifest error of law in
rejecting the plaint under Order-VII Rule11 C.P.C. as the plaint of the suit does not
fall under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.. He
further submitted that trial court has not
considered the objection filed by plaintiffappellant to the application filed by
defendant-respondents
under
Order-VII
Rule 11 C.P.C. to the effect that sale deed
dated 5.3.2021 has not satisfied the
ingredients of section- 54 and 55 of the
Transfer of Property Act 1882. He
submitted
that
trial
court
summarily
decided the case on the basis of the
application 30-Ga Under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C.
He
submitted
that
suit
for
cancellation of the sale dead as well as for
permanent injection is to be decided after
framing issues giving parties to lead the
evidence rather to reject the plaint on the
basis of the application filed by defendant
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. He
submitted
that
while
deciding
the
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
the plaint allegations are only to be seen
and plaint allegation fully demonstrate that
plaintiff suit for cancellation of sale dead
and
permanent
injection
cannot
be
dismissed on the basis of application file
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. He
submitted that impugned judgement and
order dated 29.5.2023 passed by trial court
should be set aside and application 30-Ga
filed by defendant under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C. should be dismissed as well as
plaintiff suit should be decided on merit
after
framing
issues
and
affording
opportunity to the parties to lead evidence
in accordance with law. He placed reliance
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
upon the following judgements of Apex
court in support of his arguments in order
to demonstrate that application under order
VII rule 11 CPC cannot be allowed in view
of the plaint allegation made in the present
case:-

1. AIR 2001 Supreme Court 416
Rajasthan
High
Court
Advocates
Association V Union of India and others.

2. (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases
706 Society represented by Chairman vs.
Ponniamman Educational Trustee.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that
application 30-Ga under Order VII rule 11
C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was
rightly filed in view of earlier litigation
taken place in respect of the property in
question. He further submitted that trial
court has rightly allowed the application
30-Ga under Order VII Rule-11 C.P.C.
and rejected the plaint filed by plaintiffappellant. He further submitted that
plaintiff has concealed the material fact
regarding pendency of the proceeding
before commercial Court. He submitted
that according to the plaint allegation
plaintiff is tenant in the disputed property
as such he cannot seek relief for
cancellation of sale deed with respect to
the property in question. He submitted
that application under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C. has been allowed after considering
the objection of the plaintiff as well as
evidence on record. He submitted that no
interference is required against the order
impugned passed by trial court rejecting
the plaint of suit filed by plaintiffappellant. He placed reliance upon the
following judgments of the Apex Court
as well as of this Court in support of his
arguments:-

1. IR 1977 SC 2421 Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No.4483 of 1977 T.
Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and
others.

2. 2021 SCC Online SC 744 Civil
Appeal
No.5779
of
2021
Himalaya
Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. Md. Zahid and
Another

3. AIR 2011 All 131 Civil
Revision
No.
333
of
2010
Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Khaybar
Transport Pvt. Ltd.

7. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned Counsel for the parties
and perused the record .

8. There is no dispute about the fact
that suit for cancellation of sale deed and
permanent injection was filed by plaintiffappellant. There is also no dispute about
the
fact
that
defendants
have
filed
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
which has been allowed and the plaint of
the plaintiff has been rejected under the
impugned judgement / order.

9. On the basis of the arguments,
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and evidence on record, the following
points
of
determination
are
to
be
determined in the instant first appeal:

i). whether the plaintiff suit
No.342 of 2021 for cancellation of sale
dead dated 5.3.2021 as well as for
permanent in junction is maintainable in
Civil Court ?

ii). whether the application filed
by defendant under Order VII Rule-11
C.P.C. can be allowed and plant of suit
no.342 of 2021 can be rejected?
8 All. M/S L.R. Solutions Vs. M/S Suro Exim Llp & Ors.
541

10. Point of determination no.i):-
whether the plaintiff suit No.342 of 2021
for cancellation of sale dead dated
5.3.2021 as well as for permanent in
junction is maintainable in Civil Court
?- In order to decide the point of
determination no.1 the plaint allegation is
to be seen. Paragraph Nos. 1 to 11 of plaint
will be relevant for perusal, which are as
under:-

"श्रीमान् जी,

वादी लनम्नलललखत लनवेदन करता है:-

1.यह लक वादी उपरोक्त पते पर मैससट एल0आर0
लप्रन्र् साल्यूशन्स के नाम से लप्रलर्ंग का कायट करता है, जो वादी की
मुख्य आजीलवका है और वादी एक सज्जन पररवार से ताल्लुक
रखता है।

2. यह लक वादी ने प्रलतवादी सं0-2 से उक्त सम्पलत्त
यानी प्लार् सं0-सी-156, सैक्र्र-10, नोएडा, जनपदगौतमबुध्दनगर को लदनांक 21.06.2008 को रेन्र् पर अपनी
आजीलवका के सम्बन्ि में कायट करने के ललए ललया था और लदनांक
21.06.2008 से आज तक वादी उक्त सम्पलत्त के बदस्तूर कब्जे
में है और वहीं से अपना कायट कर रहा है।

3. यह लक इस तथ्य की पुलष्ट स्वंय प्रलतवादी सं0-2
द्वारा वादी के लवरूद्ध योलजत श्रीमान Arbitrater गौतमबुध्दनगर
के सम्मुख वादी यालन Arbitration (claim) क्लेम लपलर्शन
नं0-4/2016 में लकये गये क्लेम व शपथपत्र द्वारा वादी के उक्त
सम्पलत्त के कब्जे में होना स्वीकार लकया है, लजससे स्पष्ट है लक वादी
उक्त सम्पलत्त के Peacefull Possession में है और अपना
लबजनेस कर रहा है।

4. यह लक वादी वादगत सम्पलत्त के सम्पूणट कब्जे में
रहते हुए अपनी फमट मैससट एल0आर0 लप्रन्र् साल्यूशन्स जोलक
उपरोक्त पते पर स्थालपत यूलनर् है, के द्वारा वषट 2008 से लगातार
अपने लबजनेस को सुचारू रूप से संचाललत करता आ रहा है।

5. यह लक यहां यह भी स्पष्ट लकया जाना आवश्यक
है लक उपरोक्त वादगत सम्पलत्त के सम्बन्ि में एक वाद जनपद
न्यायािीश जनपद गौतमबुध्दनगर के सम्मुख वादी व प्रलतवादी सं02 के मध्य आज भी लवचारािीन है। लजसका प्रलतवादी सं0-2 का
पूणट इल्म है बावजूद इसके प्रलतवादी सं0-1 व प्रलतवादी सं0-2 ने
आपस में साज कर वाद व सम्पलत्त को प्रलतवादी सं0-2 ने प्रलतवादी
सं0-1 के पक्ष में लदनांक 05.03.2021 को एक बैनामा वादी
को लवलि लवरूद्ध तरीके से बेदखल करने की नीयत से कर लदया जो
प्रारम्भ से ही शून्य है।

6. यह लक वादगत सम्पलत्त के सम्बन्ि में लवलि
लवरूद्ध तरीके से लकया गया बैनामा बही सं0-1, लजल्द सं010405, पृष्ट सं0-73 से 105 तक क्रमांक-1021 पर लदनांक
05.03.2021 को श्रीमान उपलनबन्िक सदर प्रथम गौतमबुध्दनगर
के यहां तहरीर व तकमील करा लदया।

7. यह लक बैनामा लदनांक 05.03.2021 लवलि
के वांलित प्राविानों यानी सम्पलत्त अन्तरण अलिलनयम की लवशेष
िाराओं के प्राविानों से भी वालित होने के कारण प्रारम्भ से शून्य व
लनष्प्प्रभावी दस्तावेज है, क्योंलक लवलि का यह सूस्थालपत लसध्दांत है
लक सम्पलत्त का कोई भी अन्तरण तब तक मान्य नहीं हो सकता जब
तक लक बैनामा में वलणटत का कब्जा हस्तांतररत नहीं हो जाता है।
जलबक मौजूदा प्रकरण में लवलिक रूप से आज भी वादी ही कालबज
है। जैसा लक प्रलतवादी सं0-2 को स्वीकार है और कब्जा हस्तांतरण
ना होने की लस्थलत में बैनामा लदनांक 05.03.2021 अपने आज
में एक शून्य दस्तावेज है।

8. यह लक प्रलतवादी सं0-2 को पूणट जानकारी होते
हुए लक बैनामा में वलणटत सम्पलत्त के सम्बन्ि में प्रलतवादी सं0-2 व
वादी के मध्य वाद लवचारािीन है, बावजूद इसके बगैर लवलिक
प्रलक्रया अपनाऐ बैनामा लदनांक 05.03.2021 प्रलतवादी सं0-1
के पक्ष में Execute कर वादी के शांलतपूणट कब्जे को Disturb
करने की कोलशश मात्र है, जो पूणटरूप से अलवलिक है।

9. यह लक प्रलतवादी सं0-2 द्वारा प्रलतवादी सं0-1
के पक्ष में लकया गया शून्य बैनामा लदनांक 05.03.2021 के
आिार पर प्रलतवादी सं0-1 वादी को लदनांक 10.03.2021 को
जब वादगत सम्पलत्त पर आया और वादी को लबना कानूनी प्रलक्रया
अपनाये बेदखल करने की कोलशश की।

10. यह लक वादी ने प्रलतवादी सं0-1 से माचट माह
2021 के तृतीय सिाह में जब प्रलतवादी सं0-1 को उक्त वादगत
सम्पलत्त के सम्बन्ि में उत्पन्न वाद को सुलह समझौते से लनबर्ाने के
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ललए कहा तो प्रलतवादी सं0-1 ने लववाद को आपसी सुलह समझौते
से लनबर्ाने के ललए साफ इंकार कर लदया, ललहाजा वादी मजबूरन
नाललशी है।

11. यह लक वाद का कारण लदनांक
21.06.2008 को जब उत्पन्न हुआ वादी ने वादगत सम्पलत्त का
इकरारनामा लदनांक 21.06.2008 के द्वारा प्रलतवादी सं0-2 से
लबजनेस संचाललत लकये जाने हेतु रेन्र् पर ली व लदनांक
05.03.2021 को जब प्रलतवादी सं0-2 व प्रलतवादी सं0-1 ने
आपस में साज कर वादगत सम्पलत्त का बैनामा प्रलतवादी सं0-1 के
पक्ष में कर लदया और माह माचट के तृतीय सिाह में जब प्रलतवादीगण
ने उक्त लववाद को आपसी सुलह समझौते से इंकार कर लदया।"

11. In order to decide the point of
determination No.i) as well as appreciate
the controversy involved in the matter
perusal of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. will be
also relevant, which is as under :-

Under Oder VII Rule 11.
Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall
be rejected in the following cases:

(a) where it does not disclose a
cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is
undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being
required by the Court to correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the
Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is
properly valued, but the plaint is returned
upon paper insufficiently stamped, and
the plaintiff, on being required by the
Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper
within atime to be fixed by the Court, fails
to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from
the statement in the plaint to be barred by
any law;

[(e) where it is not filed in
duplicate;

[(f) where the plaintiff fails to
comply with the provisions of rule 9:]

[Provided that the time fixed by
the Court for the correction of the
valuation or supplying of the requisite
stamp-paper shall not be extended unless
the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is
satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented
by any cause of an exceptional nature
from correcting the valuation or supplying
the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may
be, within the time fixed by the Court and
that refusal to extend such time would
cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]

12. Perusal of paragraph Nos.1 and 2
of the plaint demonstrate that plaintiffpetitioner is tenant of opposite partydefendant No.2. The perusal of paragraph
No.5 of the plaint demonstrate that matter
relating to tenancy is pending before
District Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Perusal of paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7
demonstrate that defendant No.2 has
executed
a
registered
sale
deed
on
05.03.2021 in favour of defendant No.1.
The perusal of the plaint allegation
demonstrate that plaintiff is tenant of the
accommodation in question and defendant
No.1 is owner of the accommodation in
question, as such plaintiff cannot challenge
the sale deed executed by defendant No.2
in favour of defendant No.1 on the ground
that plaintiff is in possession over the same.
The plaint allegation further demonstrate
that the dispute regarding the tenancy has
already been decided in the arbitration
proceeding and the matter is pending
before the District-Judge, Gautam Buddh
Nagar. The relief of permanent injunction
on the basis of adverse possession cannot
8 All. M/S L.R. Solutions Vs. M/S Suro Exim Llp & Ors.
543
be claimed as plaintiff is the tenant of
defendant No.2 according to the plaint
allegation and the proceeding relating to
the tenancy has already been decided
against the plaintiff.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
similar facts and circumstances of the case
in case of Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) has rejected the plaint of the suit
after setting aside the order of Trial Court
& High Court. The paragraph Nos.6 to 13
of the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in the case Himalaya Vintrade Ltd.
(Supra) will be relevant for perusal, which
is as under:-

"6. After the notice was served.
The application under Order VII Rule 11,
CPC came to be filed at the behest of the
present
appellant-defendant
with
an
objection that the suit proceedings at the
instance of the respondent no.1-plaintiff
who had pleaded himself to be a
caretaker/servant, acquires interest in the
subject property irrespective of his long
possession, is not maintainable under the
law and as regards the plea of adverse
possession is concerned, it lacks material
particulars.

7. The Trial Judge dismissed the
application on the premise that these are
the subject matter of disputes which can
be examined only after the written
statement being filed at the behest of the
present appellant-defendant and is not
within the scope of Order VII Rule 11,
CPC and order of Trial Judge came to be
confirmed by the High Court by the
impugned order assailed in the present
proceedings.

8. After we heard counsel for the
parties and taking into consideration the
material on record, in our considered view,
the Trail Court has committed a manifest
error in appreciating the pleadings on
record from the plaint filed at the instance
of respondent no. 1-plaintiff who as a
caretaker/servant can never acquire interest
in the property irrespective of his long
possession and the caretaker/servant has to
give possession forthwith on demand and so
far as the plea of adverse possession is
concerned as it lacks material particulars
and the plaint does not discloses the cause
of action for institution of the suit.

9. In our considered view, the
order of the Ld. Trial Judge which has been
confirmed by the High Court impugned in
the instant proceeding is not sustainable on
the first principles of law.

10. Consequently, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The order of the
High Court s, hereby, quashed and set aside.
The plaint no. T.S. 150/2019, on the file of
Ld. 2nd Civil Judge (Jr. Div) at Sealdah is,
accordingly, rejected.

11. Since we have rejected the
plaint in reference to the proceeding
initiated, we direct the respondent no. 1plaintiff to handover, vacant and peaceful
possession of the subject property in
question free from all encumbrances within
three months.

12. If the respondent no. 1plaintiff fails to handover possession, the
appellant-defendant will be at liberty to take
the recourse as known to the law.

13. Pending application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of."

14. In view of the aforementioned
facts and circumstances of the case the
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
point of determination No.(i) is decided in
negative and it is held that suit for
cancellation of sale deed and injunction at
the instance of plaintiff, who is tenant of
the defendant No.2 is not maintainable.

15. Point of determination No.ii)
Whether the application filed by defendant
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. can be
allowed and plaint of suit No.342 of 2021
can be rejected?

16. While deciding the point of
determination No.(i) it is held that suit
No.342 of 2021 for cancellation of sale
deed and injunction at the instance of
plaintiff who is tenant of the defendant
No.2 is not maintainable as such in view of
ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in
Himalaya Vintrade Ltd. (Supra) the
plaint of suit No.342 of 2021 is liable to be
rejected.

17. In view of the aforementioned
facts and circumstances of the case the
point of determination No.(ii) is answered
in affirmative and the plaint of suit No.342
of 2021 should be rejected which has been
rightly rejected by trial court under
impugned judgment.

18. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no
illegality in the judgment and decree passed
by trial court rejecting plaint of suit No.342
of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

19. The first appeal is dismissed,
accordingly.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 544
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Second Appeal No. 2375 of 1982

Ram Phal ...Appellant
Versus
Ram Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.K. Gaur, M.K. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Madnesh Prasad Singh, Pramod Kumar,
Vinod Kumar

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the decision in Mst. Ananti v. Chhannu
(AIR 1930 All 193), which held that a plaint filed
in a Civil Court for a suit cognizable by a
Revenue
Court
cannot
be
returned
for
presentation to the proper court, still holds good
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
Athmanathaswami
Devasthanam
v.
K.
Gopalaswami Aiyangar (AIR 1965 SC 338) and
the amended provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of
the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100, Order 7 Rule 10, - Indian
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article - 14 - Second
appeal - of the year 1982 - concerning
jurisdiction of Civil Court over suits cognizable
by Revenue Court - during pendency, several
respondents died however legal heirs were
impleaded - substantial question of law - once a
court come to the conclusion that it has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit, the plaint has
to be returned back and the said court mya not
be go into the other issues and if plaint is
presented in the competent court, the suit will
be decided De Novo by granting benefit of
Article 14 of Limitation Act - Trial Court held it
lacked jurisdiction but proceeded to decide
other issues and dismissed the suit - Civil
Appeal - first appellate court upheld dismissal
without addressing jurisdictional error - second
appeal - court finds that, the said court has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit and the
competent court would be the court of Revenue