# Nimmi Infratech Private Limited (Previously Satya Homes Private Limited) v. Fundan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 365
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-23
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 844 of 2024
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nimmi-infratech-private-limited-previously-satya-homes-private-limited-v-fundan-52858
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law-The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908-Section 96 - Order-VII Rule 11 &
14 - The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code,
2006-Sections 144 & 206-- Since the
land in dispute is not held or occupied for
purposes connected with agriculture, it
cannot be said to be a "holding"--- The
plaintiff has not come up with a claim as
'bhumidhar' or 'asami' of land but has
raised a grievance before the civil court
arising out of execution of sale deeds to
the detriment of its interest and nonexecution of sale deed of remaining land in
its favour but in favour of third parties---
Once it is found that the land in dispute
covered by the agreement for sale or the
disputed sale deeds under challenge has
gone beyond the definition of "land" or
"holding", no provision of Code of 2006
would apply and, in that event, only civil
court would have jurisdiction to grant
decree as prayed for---Impugned order set
aside. (Para 19 & 21)

Appeal allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:
Prem Kumar Rastogi Vs M/s. On-UP Automobiles
Pvt. Ltd. & ors., 2019 (3) A.D.J. 491 (DB) (LB)

## Text

1 All. Nimmi Infratech Private Limited (Previously Satya Homes Private Limited) Vs. Fundan & Ors.
365
(2025) 1 ILRA 365
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

First Appeal No. 844 of 2024

Nimmi
Infratech
Private
Limited
(Previously Satya Homes Private Limited)
 ...Appellant
Versus
Fundan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Nisheeth Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Srijan Mehrotra, Yash
Tandon

Civil Law-The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908-Section 96 - Order-VII Rule 11 &
14 - The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code,
2006-Sections 144 & 206-- Since the
land in dispute is not held or occupied for
purposes connected with agriculture, it
cannot be said to be a "holding"--- The
plaintiff has not come up with a claim as
'bhumidhar' or 'asami' of land but has
raised a grievance before the civil court
arising out of execution of sale deeds to
the detriment of its interest and nonexecution of sale deed of remaining land in
its favour but in favour of third parties---
Once it is found that the land in dispute
covered by the agreement for sale or the
disputed sale deeds under challenge has
gone beyond the definition of "land" or
"holding", no provision of Code of 2006
would apply and, in that event, only civil
court would have jurisdiction to grant
decree as prayed for---Impugned order set
aside. (Para 19 & 21)

Appeal allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:
Prem Kumar Rastogi Vs M/s. On-UP Automobiles
Pvt. Ltd. & ors., 2019 (3) A.D.J. 491 (DB) (LB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

ANALYSIS OF BAR OF SUIT
INVOKING U.P. REVENUE CODE, 2006
VIS-A-VIS REJECTION OF PLAINT
UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 C.P.C.

THE APPEAL

1. The instant appeal under Section 96
of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.') assails
validity of the impugned judgment and
order dated 16.08.2024 and decree dated
20.08.2024 based thereupon, whereby the
learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division),
Gautam Buddha Nagar has allowed an
application 20-क filed by the defendantrespondent No.6 under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C. and rejected the plaint of Original
Suit No.828 of 2024 (Nimmi Infratech Pvt.
Limited vs. Fundan and others). The order
impugned amounts to a decree under
Section 2(2) C.P.C., hence this regular
appeal.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The aforesaid suit was filed with the
averments that Satya Homes Private
Limited being a private limited company
incorporated and registered under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
was subsequently nomenclatured as Nimmi
Infratech Private Limited. Defendants No.1
to 4 were alleged to be owners of the
property in dispute with an averment that
their names were recorded in the revenue
records and that they had entered into an
agreement for sale dated 02.05.2014 with
the plaintiff-Company and out of the total
proposed
sale
consideration
of
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.15,21,37,274/-,
a
sum
of
Rs.
3,00,00,000/- was paid by the Company;
the agreement was registered in the office
of Sub-Registrar concerned; possession of
the property was delivered to the appellant
as per the agreement itself; stamp duty
amounting to Rs.76,12,100/- was paid on
the entire sale consideration; a sale deed
dated 14.12.2015 was executed by the
executant Mehar Chand in favour of the
plaintiff-Company in respect of part of land
covered by gata No.795 and a sum of
Rs.29,23,700/- was paid in relation to the
agreement for sale which was adjusted
towards sale consideration and remaining
amount was paid to the defendants No.1 to
4. Further averments were made regarding
another
sale
deed
dated
20.06.2015
executed in respect of some part of gata
No.793 and adjustment of money paid with
reference to agreement for sale.

3. The cause of action giving rise to
the suit was alleged on account of the fact
that the defendants No.1 to 4, instead of
executing sale deed in furtherance of the
agreement for sale in respect of remaining
part of the land, executed six sale deeds in
favour of other defendants and though a
suit being Original Suit No.1183 of 2023
(Satya Homes Private Limited vs. Fundan
and others) was previously filed in the
court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division),
Gautam Buddha Nagar claiming a decree
of specific performance of the agreement
and, in which, a temporary injunction order
dated 10.10.2023 was passed, the sale
deeds were executed in violation thereof.
Terming the sale deeds as void and
adversely affecting the rights of the
plaintiff for multiple reasons, decree was
claimed to the effect that sale deeds be
declared as illegal, forged, fabricated and
void documents and ineffective qua the
rights of the plaintiff-Company and such
endorsement be made in the records of the
Sub-Registrar concerned. A further decree
for injunction restraining the respondents
from alienating the property based upon the
void sale deeds was also claimed with a
further relief of damages to the tune of
Rs.15,00,000/- per month.

4. The trial court, on 21.05.2024,
passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction
order directing the parties to maintain
status quo and issued notices to the
defendants. The injunction order was
extended from time to time and, later on, an
application 20-क was filed by defendant
No.6 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. with
a prayer to reject the plaint. Pursuant to an
order dated 02.07.2024 passed by this
Court in Matter Under Article 227 No.7743
of 2024 (M/s Aahaan Infrastructure v.
Nimmi Infratech Private Limited and 9
others), whereby the trial court was
directed to make all endeavours to decide
the application under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C., the trial court took up the said
application for consideration and has
rejected the same by the order impugned.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII
RULE 11 C.P.C.

5. The application under Order VII
Rule 11 C.P.C. raised the ground for
rejection of the plaint as valuation of the
suit on thirty times of land revenue as is
done in case of agricultural land; pendency
of previous suit being Original Suit
No.1183 of 2023 raising a bar under Order
II Rule 2 C.P.C. and non-payment of
adequate Court fees though the land had
been declared as "non-agricultural" under
Section
143
of
the
Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
1 All. Nimmi Infratech Private Limited (Previously Satya Homes Private Limited) Vs. Fundan & Ors.
367
Act of 1950'), as per the recitals contained
in the sale deeds under challenge.

ORDER REJECTING PLAINT

6. The trial court has rejected the
plaint by referring to Sections 144 and 206
of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code of
2006') read with Section 9 C.P.C. and held
that since the plaintiff has valued the suit
on land revenue payable qua agricultural
land and a declaratory decree has been
claimed, in view of the bar contained under
Section 206 of the Code of 2006, the suit is
barred.

LEARNED COUNSEL HEARD

7. I have heard Shri C.B. Yadav,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
Anand Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for
the plaintiff-appellant; Shri Yash Tandon,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to
4 and Shri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned
counsel assisted by Shri Ashwani Kumar
Patel and Shri Srijan Mehrotra, learned
counsel for respondent No.6. The record of
the trial court has already been received
and the appeal has been admitted on earlier
occasion.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

8. Following point for determination
arises for consideration in this appeal and is
framed under Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C.:-

"Whether rejection of plaint by
invoking bar of civil court with reference to
provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is
justified?"

ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANTS

9. Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior
Counsel submits that since jurisdiction to
declare sale deeds as null and void vests
only with civil court and revenue court has
no jurisdiction to grant such a decree,
rejection
of
plaint
is
perse
illegal.
Elaborating his submissions, it is urged that
suit for adjudging registered sale deeds as
null and void does not fall under under any
clause or cub-clause or entry of Schedules
II and III referable to Section 206 of the
Code of 2006 and no declaration of rights
as 'bhumidhar' or 'asami' having been
claimed by the plaintiff, neither Section
206 nor Section 144 of the Code of 2006
has any application and, hence, gross error
has been committed by the trial court. It is
also urged that since the defendant No.6, in
his application under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C.
itself,
alleged
that
the
land
mentioned in the disputed sale deeds has
already
been
declared
as
"nonagricultural" under Section 143 of the Act
of 1950, the trial court was not justified in
rejecting the plaint merely on the ground
that suit has been valued or Court fees has
been paid as per the provisions applicable
for agricultural land. Submission is that
issue of wrongful valuation of suit or
deficient court fees may become subject
matter of trial later on but the same, in
itself, could not become a ground for
rejecting the plaint at its threshold.

10. Another argument advanced is
based upon Section 4(14) of the Code of
2006 which contains definition of "land"
and it is urged that since as per the
defendant-respondent No.6 itself, the land
is not held or occupied for purposes
connected with agriculture, it goes beyond
the purview of Code of 2006 and, hence, no
provision of the Code could have been
invoked to reject the plaint.
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that for considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C., only averments contained in the
plaint can be seen and since the plaint does
not disclose the nature of land as nonagricultural, rather the plaintiff itself has
valued the suit on the principles applicable
for valuation of agricultural land, mere
statement contained in application under
Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. regarding
declaration of land as non-agricultural
under Section 143 of the Act of 1950
would be irrelevant. It is further urged that
a statement contained in an application
cannot be deemed to be an admission on
the part of the defendants so as to adjudge
the maintainability of the suit while
considering the application. As regards
jurisdiction of civil court to grant the
decree as claimed in the suit, it is urged that
admittedly, the plaintiff is not the owner or
bhumidhar of the land and, even if, the sale
deeds are cancelled, the same would not
confer ownership or bhumidhari rights qua
the land upon the plaintiff and, therefore,
for obtaining a declaration in its favour, if
any, the plaintiff should approach revenue
court as per Section 144 of the Act of 1950
and, hence, in view of entries contained in
III Schedule read with Section 206 (2)(b)
and those contained in II Schedule of the
Code of 2006, only the revenue court
would have jurisdiction; the jurisdiction of
civil court would be barred and, therefore,
the trial court has not committed any error.
In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for the respondents has placed
reliance on the following authorities:-

(i). Shri Ram and others v. Ist
A.D.J. & others, A.I.R. 2001 SC 1250;

(ii). Kamla Prasad & others v.
Kishna Kant Pathak & others, (2007) 4
S.C.C. 213;

(iii). Jai Prakash Singh v.
Bachchu Lal and others, 2019 S.C.C.
Online All 3522;

(iv). Pyare Lal v. Shubhendra
Pilania
(Minor)
through
natural
guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar
Pilania and others, (2019) 3 SCC 692;

(v). Bansraj & others v. Moti
and others, 2019 S.C.C. Online All 4238;

(vi). Sarla Pal and others v.
Addl.
District
Judge,
Court
No.6,
Kanpur Dehat and others, (2019) 144 RD
751;

(vii). Vijay Pal and others v.
Rajendra Kumar, 2021 (4) A.D.J. 182;

(viii). Shree Surya Developers
and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad &
others, (2022) 5 S.C.C. 736;

(ix). Smt. Kushma Devi v.
Darshan Singh and 4 others; 2024 (4)
ADJ 247;

(x). Bhagwati Devi v. Radhey
Shyam and others, 1976 (2) A.L.R. 702;

(xi). Narendra Kumar Mittal &
others v. Nupur Housing Development
Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 20 S.C.C. 158;

(xii). Mangoo Singh & others v.
Ram Autar, 2024 (9) ADJ 351."

ANALYSIS OF RIVAL CONTENTIONS

12. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, this Court finds that the plaint
has been rejected by invoking sub-rule (d)
of Rule 11 of Order VII, i.e., the bar of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in this case and,
therefore, it thinks it proper to first refer
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C.
which reads as under:-

"Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
1 All. Nimmi Infratech Private Limited (Previously Satya Homes Private Limited) Vs. Fundan & Ors.
369

11. Rejection of plaint.-The
plaint shall be rejected in the following
cases:-

...........................

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

13. It is known to everyone that C.P.C.
was drastically amended by Act No. 46 of
1999 w.e.f. 01.07.2002. One of the
amendments was made in Rule 14 of Order
VII which is in relation to documents relied
on in plaint. The Rule is quoted hereunder:-

"Order VII Rule 14
Documents relied on in plaint

14. Production of document on
which plaintiff sues or relies.- (1) Where
a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies
upon document in his possession or power
in support of his claim, he shall enter such
documents in a list, and shall produce it in
court when the plaint is presented by him
and shall, at the same time deliver the
document and a copy thereof, to be filed
with the plaint.

(2) Where any such document is
not in the possession or power of the
plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state
in whose possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to
be produced in Court by the plaintiff when
the plaint is presented, or to be entered in
the list to be added or annexed to the plaint
but is not produced or entered accordingly,
shall not, without the leave of the Court, be
received in evidence on his behalf at the
hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this rule shall
apply to document produced for the crossexamination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or,
handed over to a witness merely to refresh
his memory."

14. The amended provisions of Rule
14, therefore, caste an obligation upon
plaintiff to enter documents in a list and
produce the same when the plaint is
presented when he sues or relies upon such
documents that are in his possession or
power in support of his claim. Sub-rule (3)
of Rule 14 creates a bar against subsequent
production of such documents and provides
that the same shall not be received in
evidence at the hearing of the suit without
leave of the Court. In view of the amended
provisions, the intention of legislature
becomes crystal clear that the statement
contained in the plaint has to be read with
the documents produced alongwith the
plaint and pleadings cannot be segregated
with the documents filed alongwith the
plaint. Similar view has been taken by
Division Bench of this Court in Prem
Kumar
Rastogi
v.
M/s.
On-UP
Automobiles Pvt. Limited and others,
2019 (3) A.D.J. 491 (DB) (LB). Relevant
extract from the judgment is reproduced as
under:-

"...................

23. The above quoted provision
i.e. Rule 11 relates to rejection of plaint on
certain grounds mentioned therein and Rule
14 relates to production of documents by
the plaintiff on which plaintiff sues or
relies. A perusal of the Rule 14 would show
that if a plaintiff sues upon a document or
relies upon a document in that event he
shall produce the said documents in Court
when the plaint is presented. In other
words, the plaintiff is under obligation to
file the basis of the suit/document on which
the plaint is based at the time of filing of
the suit or presenting the plaint.

24. Needless to say that both the
provisions are part and parcel of Order 7.
Rule 10 of Order 7 authorises the Court to
return the plaint for want of jurisdiction for
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
presenting the same in competent court of
jurisdiction.

25. A conjoint reading of the
aforesaid provisions would show that the
Court is empowered to consider the
documents filed under Order 7 Rule 14,
being
filed
in
support
of
allegations/averments made in the plaint as
basis of suit/plaint, at the time of dealing
with the application moved either under
Rule 10 or Under Rule 11 of the CPC. "

15. In the instant case, the documents
produced at the time of presentation of
plaint are not the photo-stat copies thereof
but fall in the category of either primary or
secondary evidence and it is apparent from
record that certified copes of disputed sale
deeds were not only entered into a list of
documents by the plaintiffs but the same
were filed in support of its claim. What
would be the fate of these documents or
their effect on trial or ultimate decision to
be taken in the suit is altogether different,
however, as observed above, when a Court
proceeds to consider an application under
VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the documents filed
alongwith the plaint cannot be ignored,
rather, they would be read alongwith
statements made in the plaint.

16. Therefore, in order to ascertain as
to whether the suit giving rise to this appeal
is barred by the provisions of Code of
2006, when the statement contained in the
plaint is read with the recitals contained in
the registered sale deeds challenged by way
of suit, it is found that all the sale deeds
disclosed purpose of sale/purchase as
"residential" and the stamp duty had been
paid on the circle rates applicable for
residential properties. Apart from this, the
agreement for sale dated 02.05.2014 also
describes that stamp duty was paid on
circle rates applicable for residential
properties. It is nowhere provided in any of
the documents that the land in dispute is
agricultural in nature. Further the list of
documents filed by the plaintiff included
revneue records relating to the property in
question which contained reference of
declaration
made
by
the
Competent
Authority under Section 143 of Act of 1950
declaring
the
property
as
"nonagricultural".

17. When the aforesaid documents are
analysed in the light of arguments of Shri
C.B. Yadav based upon definition of "land"
contained in the Code of 2006, this Court
deems it appropriate to reproduce the same
alongwith some other provisions. Relevant
provisions of Code of 2006 are extracted as
under:-

"4(12). 'holding' means a parcel
of lands held under one tenure or one lease,
engagement or grant;

4(14). 'land', except in Chapters
VII and VIII and Sections 80, 81 and
Section 136, means land held or occupied
for purposes connected with agriculture;

144.
Declaratory
suits
by
tenure-holders.- (1) Any person claiming
to be a Bhumidhar or asami of any holding
or part thereof, whether exclusively or
jointly with any other person, may sue for a
declaration of his rights in such holding or
part.

(2) In every suit under subsection (1) instituted by or on behalf of:-

(a) a Bhumidhar, the State and
the Gram Panchayat shall be necessary
parties;

(b) an asami, the land-holder shall
be a necessary party.

206. Jurisdiction of Civil Court
and
Revenue
Courts.-
(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any
law for the time being in force, but subject
1 All. Nimmi Infratech Private Limited (Previously Satya Homes Private Limited) Vs. Fundan & Ors.
371
to the provisions of this Code, no Civil
Court shall entertain any suit, application or
proceeding to obtain a decision or order on
any matter which the State Government,
the Board, any revenue court or revenue
officer is, by or under this Code,
empowered to determine, decide or dispose
of.

(2) Without prejudice to the
generality of the provisions of sub-section
(1), and save as otherwise expressly
provided by or under this Code-

(a) no Civil Court shall exercise
jurisdiction over any of the matters
specified in the Second Schedule; and

(b) no Court other than the
revenue court or the revenue officer
specified in [Column 3] of the Third
Schedule
shall
entertain
any
suit,
application or proceeding specified in
[Column 2] thereof.

(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in this Code, an objection that a
court or officer mentioned in sub-section
(2)(b) had or had no jurisdiction with
respect
to
any
suit,
application
or
proceedings, shall not be entertained by any
appellate, revisional or executing court,
unless the objection was taken before the
court or officer of the first instance, at the
earliest opportunity, and in all cases where
issues are settled at or before such
settlement, and unless there has been a
consequent failure of justice."

18. As far as Schedules II and III
corresponding to Section 206 of the Code
of 2006, as considered by the trial court in
the impugned order are concerned, the
Court need not quote or reproduce the same
as it would be a futile depiction for the
simple reason that the provisions of Section
206 read with the associated Schedules
could have been relevant only when the lis
is
regarding
"land"
or
"holding"
respectively defined under sections 4(14)
and 4(12) of the Code of 2006 and not in
respect of the land or holding which goes
out of purview of the Code on account of
its very nature, as reflected from the plaint
and/or associated documents. Since the trial
court has invoked bar of section 206 and
has held that plaintiff-appellant should
claim a declaration under section 144 of the
Code 2006, it is to observe that section 144
applies when any person claiming himself
to be a 'bhumidhari' or 'asami' of any
holding or part thereof sues for a
declaration of his rights in such holding or
part thereof. 'Holding', as per Section
4(12) of the Code, has been defined as a
"parcel of lands" held under one tenure or
one lease, engagement or grant. 'Land', as
per section 4(14), means land held or
occupied for purposes connected with
agriculture.

19. As noted above, since the land in
dispute is not held or occupied for purposes
connected with agriculture, it cannot be
said to be a "holding" and, hence, the
provisions of Section 144 would not apply.
They would not apply also for the reason
that the plaintiff has not come up with a
claim as 'bhumidhar' or 'asami' of land but
has raised a grievance before the civil court
arising out of execution of sale deeds to the
detriment of its interest in defiance of a
claim based upon registered agreement for
sale dated 02.05.2014 and some sale deeds
in furtherance thereto in its favour and nonexecution of sale deed of remaining land in
its favour but in favour of third parties.

20. It is also significant to observe that
both plaintiff-appellant and contesting
defendant-respondent
No.6
are
construction/infrastructure companies and,
during the course of arguments in this
appeal on all occasions, both sides raised
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allegations against each other regarding
raising of constructions on the spot by the
transferees. This also reflects that the land
is neither held nor occupied for the
purposes connected with agriculture and
even the sale deeds are meant for raising
residential constructions.

21. The Court does not want to enter
into a detailed discussion based upon the
authorities cited as regards power of civil
court to grant a decree for cancellation or
adjudging the written instrument as null
and void in a case when the person seeking
such adjudication is not a recorded tenureholder. This is so because, in the facts of
this case, once it is found that the land in
dispute covered by the agreement for sale
or the disputed sale deeds under challenge
has gone beyond the definition of "land" or
"holding", no provision of Code of 2006
would apply and, in that event, only civil
court would have jurisdiction to grant
decree as prayed for.

22. As far as the alleged wrongful
valuation of the suit is concerned, it is
always open for the trial court to frame
issues as regards proper valuation and
payment of Court fees and, in that event,
appropriate order can be passed but, at this
stage of proceedings, mere statement based
upon valuation of the suit on thirty times of
land revenue could not create a bar of
provisions of Code of 2006 so as to warrant
rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11
(d) C.P.C.

23. Although Shri Yadav submits that
there was an injunction order operative
when the plaint was rejected and, therefore,
if the Court allows the appeal and revives
the plaint, it should also revive the
injunction order, this Court is not in a
position to accept this submission for the
reason that prior to the institution of the
suit in question, admittedly, another suit
being Original Suit No.1183 of 2023 was
filed by the plaintiff, in which, a
conditional interim order with reference to
record of rights qua the land in dispute was
passed on 10.10.2023 and reference thereof
is contained in the plaint of the subsequent
suit
also.
Even
ex-parte
ad-interim
injunction order passed in subsequent suit
giving rise to this appeal is also conditional
on the same lines. Hence, though the Court
is satisfied that rejection of plaint is illegal,
it does not find any good ground to revive
the injunction order as any observation
made by this court in that regard may
nullify/modify
the
injunction
order(s)
passed in two suits and that would be
beyond the scope of this appeal.

CONCLUSION

24. In view of the above, the solitary
point for determination is answered in
favour of the plaintiff-appellant holding
that rejection of plaint invoking bar of the
provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
was not lawful and the trial court has
grossly
erred
in
passing
the
order
impugned.

25. Consequently, the appeal succeeds
and is allowed.

26. The judgment, order and decree
detailed in 1st paragraph of this judgment
are set aside. The plaint of Original Suit
No. 828 of 2024 stands revived for all
purposes.

27. Office is directed to forthwith
remit the trial court's record to the Civil
Judge, (Senior Division), Gautam Buddha
Nagar.
----------
1 All. Sri Raman Arora Vs. Susheel Kumar (Deceased) & Ors.
373
(2025) 1 ILRA 373
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 95 of 2023

Sri Raman Arora ...Revisionist
Versus
Susheel Kumar (Deceased) & Ors.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Mahender, Mohan Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Vijay Prakash Mishra

A. Tenancy Law - Maintainability of
eviction suits in cases of unwritten
agreement - Uttar Pradesh Regulation of
Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - U.P.
Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 - Central
Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.

From a bare reading of Section 1(4), it is
clear that legislature intended to give
retrospective effect to the Act No. 16 of
2021 with effect from the issuance of
ordinance i.e. 11.01.2021 and, therefore,
there is no scope of doubt left to hold that
the Act would be taken to have come into
force with effect from 11.01.2021. (Para 7)

B. Maintainability of eviction suits in cases
of unwritten agreement - No provision
which is very clear in its language can be
interpreted otherwise to either enlarge its
scope of application or to narrow it down.

The language of Section 38(2) is very
clear and it bars in quite an unequivocal
terms exercise of jurisdiction by Rent
Authority
in
cases
when
written
agreement are not there between landlord
and tenant as per format prescribed under
1st Schedule to Act No. 16 of 2021. The
legislature uses every word cautiously and with
a meaningful purpose. The Act of 2021 aims at
improving upon the existing tenancy laws with
new legislation and intends to bind parties to
enter tenancy agreements in writing to remove
uncertainties as to rent, terms and tenure of
tenancy with an object to protect interest of
both landlord and tenant. Any interference to
present rent authority to entertain cases
in cases of unwritten tenancy would
defeat the very object of the Act. (Para 8)

C. If a Bench of same strength arrives at a
different view on a point of law from
earlier view expressed by an earlier
Bench, it should in proprietary, refer the
matter to a larger Bench. (Para 9)

Thus, if a bench of same strength comes to
conclude that earlier co-ordinate Bench had
either ignored a particular provision of law or
has failed to properly appreciate the same, it
has only option to refer it to a larger Bench. It,
in propriety and to maintain judicial discipline
cannot take a different view altogether. (Para
10)

Thus, since, the small cause suit in the matter
of unwritten agreement between the parties u/s
15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act
have been made applicable by the U.P. Civil
Laws
(Amendment)
Act,
1972
with
the
Presidential assent, the suit is held to be
maintainable on this count and in view of the
law laid down by this Court in the case of Amit
Gupta (infra). (Para 11)

Revision application dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Amit Gupta Vs Gulab Chandra Kanodia and
Shri Mewak Ram, MANU/UP/1559/2023 SCC
Revision No. 158 of 2022 (Para 4)

2. Keshav Dev Khemka Samaj Sewa Sadam
Samiti Vs Kuldeep Chand Malik, S.C.C. Revision
Defective No. 48 of 2022 decided on 15.05.2023
(Para 4)

3. Mary Pushpam Vs Telvi Curusumary & ors.,
(2024) 3 SCC 224 (Para 9)

Precedent distinguished: