# Om Prakash Agarwal v. Lacchi Ram & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 4 ILRA 124
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-19
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/om-prakash-agarwal-v-lacchi-ram-ors-47033
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure
,1908 - Order VII Rule 11 read with
section 151 - Rejection of plaint - Section
115 - Revision - power under Article 227 is
of the judicial superintendence - which
cannot be used to up-set conclusions of
facts, howsoever erroneous those may be,
unless such conclusions are so perverse or
so unreasonable that no Court could ever
have reached them. (Para -13)

Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with
section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure - to
reject the plaint - ground - plaintiff is not
specified/identify the exact location of his 1⁄2
share - map and the decree passed by
Commissioner not annexed - objection filed by
the petitioner - application rejected by Civil
Judge (Senior Division)

HELD:- The present petition is not at all
maintainable specially due to the fact that a
statutory alternative remedy is available to the
petitioner to file a Civil Revision before the
revisional court as provided under Section 115
of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para - 20)

Petition disposed off. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner that when a joint tenant applies
for impleadment, he cannot be non suited on
the aforesaid proposition of law by placing
reliance upon judgement of this Court in the
case of Gauri Shankar Gupta (supra). In
my opinion, the judgement of this Court in
the case of Lalit Kumar (supra) is not
applicable in the facts of the present case for
two reasons; firstly in the case in hand, the
impleadment application has been filed
maliciously to delay the disposal of the suit
inasmuch as the suit has been filed in the year
2010 and the impleadment application has
been filed in the year 2020 despite the fact
that the applicant has knowledge about the
pendency of the suit since 2011 as he had
filed application to recall the ex-parte order
on 9.2.2011. Secondly, the judgement of this
Court in Gauri Shankar Gupta (supra) was
considered by this Court in the case of
Krishna Kityal (Smt.) (supra) and this Court
placing reliance upon judgement of Harish
Tandon Vs. Additional District Magistrate
and others, 1995 (1) ARC 220 (SC) held
that on the death of a tenant the heirs
succeeded the tenancy rights as joint tenant,
and it rejected impleadment application.
Accordingly, this Court is bound by the law
propounded by this Court in latter judgement
Krishna Kityal (Smt.) (supra).

17.
Now
applying
the
aforesaid
principle in the case in hand, the revisionapplicant who is claiming to be the joint
tenant of the property being son of late Ram
Lakhan Tiwari, who according to the
revision-applicant was original tenant of the
premises in dispute, is neither necessary party
nor proper party.

18. It is also pertinent to mention that
the present application has been filed by the
revision-applicant only with a purpose to
delay the disposal of the suit inasmuch as
he had filed an application in the year 2011
for recall of the ex-parte order in which
specific case of the landlord-respondent
No. 1-plaintiff was that the revisionapplicant is neither in possession of the
premises in dispute nor has any concern
with the premises in dispute, yet he had
slept over the matter and did not file any
impleadment application immediately, and
after about 10 years, he filed application for
impleadment in the suit.

19. For the aforesaid reasons, the
present application under order 1 rule 10 of
C.P.C., has been filed mischieviously only
to delay the suit.

20. For the reasons given above, in the
opinion of the Court, the trial court has not
committed any jurisdictional error or any
material
irregularity
in
rejecting
the
application under order 1 rule 10 of C.P.C.
Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion
that the present revision lacks merit and is
dismissed with no order as to costs.

----------
(2021)04ILR A124
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 673 of 2021 (Civil)

Om Prakash Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
Lacchi Ram & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anupam Laloriya, Sri Pankaj Saksena

Counsel for the Respondents:
-----
4 All. Om Prakash Agarwal Vs. Lacchi Ram & Ors.
125
(A) Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure
,1908 - Order VII Rule 11 read with
section 151 - Rejection of plaint - Section
115 - Revision - power under Article 227 is
of the judicial superintendence - which
cannot be used to up-set conclusions of
facts, howsoever erroneous those may be,
unless such conclusions are so perverse or
so unreasonable that no Court could ever
have reached them. (Para -13)

Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with
section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure - to
reject the plaint - ground - plaintiff is not
specified/identify the exact location of his 1⁄2
share - map and the decree passed by
Commissioner not annexed - objection filed by
the petitioner - application rejected by Civil
Judge (Senior Division)

HELD:- The present petition is not at all
maintainable specially due to the fact that a
statutory alternative remedy is available to the
petitioner to file a Civil Revision before the
revisional court as provided under Section 115
of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para - 20)

Petition disposed off. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. R.K. Roja Vs U.S. Rayudu & anr. , AIR 2016
SC 3282

2.
Virudhunagar
Hindu
Nadargal
Dharma
Paribalam
Sabai
&
ors.
Versus
Tuticorin
Educational Society & Ors , (2019) 9 SCC page
538

3. Dahiben Vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
(Gajra) (D) THR LRS & ors. , 2020 4 Supreme
160
4. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S J. Lal
Filling Station & anr., Matter Under Article 227
No. 339 of 2021

5. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Amritsar Gas
Service & ors. reported in (1991) 1 SCC page
533

6. Surya Dev Rai Vs Ram Chander Rai & ors.
(2003) 6 SCC 675

7. Jasbir Singh Vs St. of Punj. (2006 ) 8 SCC 294

8. CIT Vs Bombay Trust Corporation reported in
AIR 1930 PC 54

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Saxena, counsel
for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present petition inter-alia with the prayer to
set aside the order dated 05.03.2020 passed
by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi in
Original Suit No. 259 of 2016 (Lachchi
Ram vs. Rajesh and others).

3. Facts in brief as contained in the
present petition are that Original Suit No.
259 of 2016 was filed by one Lachchi Ram
along-with Mukesh against Rajesh and 4
others including the present petitioner Om
Prakash Agarwal in the Court of Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division),
Jhansi
for
permanent injunction and for declaration
that the decree dated 26.05.1993 passed by
Commissioner, Jhansi in Appeal No. 56 of
1993 (Ranpat Singh Parihar vs. State) be
declared void inter-alia on the ground that
he is the owner of 1⁄2 of the plot being plot
nos. 2308, 2309, 2310, 2311 and 2314 total
5 plots of area 1.71 decimal, situated in
Mohal Nandu Khata, Khewat No. 11,
Mauja-Jhansi, Pargana and District-Jhansi.
Ranpat Singh has got a decree in his favour
from
the
Commissioner,
Jhansi
on
26.05.1993 on the basis of which he has
sold the land in question to petitioner and
respondent nos. 3 to 6 who are trying to
dispossess the plaintiff.
126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4 . An application was filed by the
present petitioner as provided under Order
VII Rule 11 read with section 151 of Code of
Civil Procedure with the prayer to reject the
plaint itself mainly on the ground that the
plaintiff is not specified/identify the exact
location of his 1⁄2 share and has not annexed
map and the decree passed by Commissioner,
Jhansi Division Jhansi dated 26.05.1993,
copy of the objection filed by the petitioner as
stated above is appended as Annexure-4 to
the present petition. The aforesaid application
was filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid
suit on 01.04.2019. The aforesaid application
was heard by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Jhansi and rejected vide its
judgment and order dated 05.03.2020. It is
argued that application filed by the petitioner
under Order VII Rule 11 read with section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
illegally and arbitrary rejected by the trial
court. It is further argued that the order
impugned is in complete violation of the
settled principles of law.

5. Counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the following judgments:-

1. AIR 2016 SC 3282 R.K. Roja
vs. U.S. Rayudu and Another decided on
04.07.2016.

2.
Virudhunagar
Hindu
Nadargal Dharma Paribalam Sabai &
Ors. Versus Tuticorin Educational Society
& Ors reported in (2019) 9 SCC page 538
decided on 03.10.2019.

3.
Dahiben
vs.
Arvindbhai
Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) THR LRS
& ORS reported in 2020 4 Supreme 160
decided on 09.07.2020.

4. Matter Under Article 227 No.
339 of 2021 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
vs. M/S J. Lal Filling Station And
Another) decided on 29.01.2021.

6. Heard counsel for the petitioner
and perused the record.

7. It appears from perusal of the
record that in Original Suit No. 259 of 2016
filed
by
the
plaintiff-respondent,
an
application was filed by the petitioner
under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section
151 of C.P.C., to dismiss the aforesaid suit.
From perusal of the order passed by the
trial court it has been held by the court
below that the plaint could only be rejected
in case it is found that no cause of action is
disclosed or suit is barred by limitation
under Rule 11 (d). It is stated in the order
impugned that the issue has already been
framed and issue nos. 2 and 3 in respect of
valuation and jurisdiction of the court has
already been decided. It is further stated in
the order impugned that the application
filed by the present petitioner could only be
decided after perusal of the evidence and as
such the application filed by the present
petitioner for dismissal of the plaint was
rejected.

8. In the case of R.K. Roja (Supra),
it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that the application filed under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can
be filed at any stage. The only restriction is
that
consideration
of
application
for
rejection should not be made on the basis
of allegations made by the defendant in his
written statement or on the basis of the
allegations in application for rejection of
plaint, the Court has to consider only plaint
as a whole and in case entire plaint comes
under situations covered under Order VII
Rule 11 (a) to (f) of Code of Civil
Procedure, the same has to be rejected. It is
further held that without disposing of an
4 All. Om Prakash Agarwal Vs. Lacchi Ram & Ors.
127
application filed under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure the court
could not proceed with the trial. Relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment
namely paragraph nos. 5 and 6 are
reproduced below:-

5. We are afraid that the stand
taken by the High Court in the impugned
order
cannot
be
appreciated.
An
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC can be filed at any stage, as held by
this Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and
others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner
and others, (2004) 3 SCC 137... "The trial
court can exercise the power at any stage
of the suit - before registering the plaint or
after issuing summons to the defendant at
any time before the conclusion of the trial.
...". The only restriction is that the
consideration
of
the
application
for
rejection should not be on the basis of the
allegations made by the defendant in his
written statement or on the basis of the
allegations in the application for rejection
of the plaint. The court has to consider only
the plaint as a whole, and in case, the
entire plaint comes under the situations
covered by Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (f) of
the CPC, the same has to be rejected.

6. Once an application is filed
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the
court has to dispose of the same before
proceeding with the trial. There is no point
or sense in proceeding with the trial of the
case, in case the plaint (Election Petition in
the present case) is only to be rejected at
the threshold. Therefore, the defendant is
entitled to file the application for rejection
before filing his written statement. In case,
the application is rejected, the defendant is
entitled to file his written statement
thereafter (See Saleem Bhai and 3 others v.
State of Maharashtra and others, (2003)
1 SCC 557. But once an application for
rejection is filed, the court has to dispose of
the same before proceeding with the trial
court. To quote relevant portion from
paragraph-20 of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable case
(supra):

"20. ... Rule 11 of Order 7 lays
down
an
independent
remedy
made
available to the defendant to challenge the
maintainability
of
the
suit
itself,
irrespective of his right to contest the same
on merits. The law ostensibly does not
contemplate at any stage when the
objections can be raised, and also does not
say in express terms about the filing of a
written statement. Instead, the word "shall"
is used, clearly implying thereby that it
casts a duty on the court to perform its
obligations in rejecting the plaint when the
same is hit by any of the infirmities
provided in the four clauses of Rule 11,
even without intervention of the defendant.
..."

9. In the case of Virudhunagar
Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana
Sabai & Ors (Supra) it was held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that whenever the
proceedings are under the code of Civil
Procedure and the forum is the Civil Court,
the availability of a remedy under the CPC,
will deter the High Court, not merely as a
measure of self imposed restriction, but as
a matter of discipline and prudence, from
exercising its power of superintendence
under the Constitution. The relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment
namely paragraphs no. 11 to 14 is
reproduced below:-

"11. Primarily the High Court, in
our view, went wrong in overlooking the
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fact that there was already an appeal in
C.M.A. No. 1 of 2018 filed before the SubCourt at Tuticorin under Order XLI, Rule 1
(r) of the Code, at the instance of the fifth
defendant in the suit (third respondent
herein), as against the very same order of
injunction and, therefore, there was no
justification for invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227.

12. Secondly, the High Court
ought to have seen that when a remedy of
appeal under section 104 (1) (i) read with
Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, was directly available,
the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have
taken recourse to the same. It is true that
the availability of a remedy of appeal may
not always be a bar for the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
In A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S.
Chellappan & Ors., (2000) 7 scc 695, this
Court held that "though no hurdle can be
put
against
the
exercise
of
the
Constitutional powers of the High Court, it
is a well recognized principle which gained
judicial recognition that the High Court
should direct the party to avail himself of
such remedies before he resorts to a
Constitutional remedy".

13. But courts should always bear
in mind a distinction between (i) cases
where such alternative remedy is available
before Civil Courts in terms of the
provisions of Code of Civil procedure and
(ii) cases where such alternative remedy is
available under special enactments and/or
statutory rules and the fora provided
therein happen to be quasi judicial
authorities and tribunals. In respect of
cases falling under the first category, which
may involve suits and other proceedings
before civil courts, the availability of an
appellate remedy in terms of the provisions
of CPC, may have to be construed as a
near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger
that someone may challenge in a revision
under Article 227, even a decree passed in
a suit, on the same grounds on which the
respondents
1
and
2
invoked
the
jurisdiction of the High court. This is why,
a 3 member Bench of this court, while
overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai
vs. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 scc 675,
pointed out in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi
Nath, (2015) 5 scc 423 that "orders of civil
court stand on different footing from the
orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts
other than judicial/civil courts.

14.
Therefore
wherever
the
proceedings are under the code of Civil
Procedure and the forum is the Civil Court,
the availability of a remedy under the CPC,
will deter the High Court, not merely as a
measure of self imposed restriction, but as
a matter of discipline and prudence, from
exercising its power of superintendence
under the Constitution. Hence, the High
Court ought not to have entertained the
revision under Article 227 especially in a
case where a specific remedy of appeal is
provided
under
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure itself."

10. In so far as the case of Dahiben
(Supra) is concerned in the aforesaid case
suit filed by the plaintiff in the trial court
was barred by limitation, the orders were
passed and Hon'ble Apex Court stating
therein that application filed under Order
VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure
holding that the suit filed was barred by
limitation. Since the suit was clearly barred
by the limitation as per Article 59 of
Limitation Act, 1963 it was liable to be
dismissed. The relevant paragraph of the
aforesaid judgment namely paragraph no.
15.8 is reproduced below:-
4 All. Om Prakash Agarwal Vs. Lacchi Ram & Ors.
129

15.8 The delay of over 5 and 1⁄2
years after the alleged cause of action arose
in 2009, shows that the suit was clearly
barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. The suit was instituted
on 15.12.2014, even though the alleged cause
of action arose in 2009, when the last cheque
was delivered to the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs have failed to
discharge the onus of proof that the suit was
filed within the period of limitation. The
plaint is therefore, liable to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC.

11. In so far as the case of the Indian
Oil
Corporation
Ltd.
(Supra)
is
concerned, it appears from perusal of the
aforesaid judgment that the suit filed by the
plaintiff was barred by the provisions of
sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the
Specific Relief Act. The aforesaid section
was duly taken into consideration by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Amritsar Gas
Service & others reported in (1991) 1 SCC
page 533. In view of the same it was held
by this Court that since the suit itself was
barred as per the provisions of sub-section
1 of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act,
the necessary orders were passed by this
Court. However in the aforesaid cases after
the arguments were advance at great length
by the counsel for the parties a prayer itself
was made by the counsel for the plaintiffrespondent that the plaintiff-respondent be
allowed for withdrawal of suit itself hence
the ratio of the aforesaid judgment will not
apply.

12. It is clear from perusal of the facts
as narrated above that the none of the
judgments will help the petitioner in so far
as the present petition is concerned.

13. The supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court over subordinate Courts is well
settled, the scope of judicial reviews is very
limited and narrow. It is not to correct the
errors in the orders of the court below but
to remove manifest and patent errors of law
and jurisdiction without acting as an
appellate authority. The power provided
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India does not vest the High Court with any
unlimited prerogative to correct all species
of hardship or wrong decisions made
within the limits of the jurisdiction of the
Court or Tribunal. It is well settled that
power under Article 227 is of the judicial
superintendence which cannot be used to
up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever
erroneous those may be, unless such
conclusions
are
so
perverse
or
so
unreasonable that no Court could ever have
reached them.

14. In the case of Surya Dev Rai vs.
Ram Chander Rai and Others (2003) 6
SCC 675, it was held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in exercise of supervisory
power under Article 227, High Court can
correct errors of jurisdiction committed by
subordinate Courts. It also held that when
subordinate
court
has
assumed
a
jurisdiction which it does not have or has
failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it
does have or jurisdiction though available
is being exercised in a manner not
permitted by law and failure of justice or
grave injustice has occasioned, the Court
may step in to exercise its supervisory
jurisdiction. However, it also said that be it
a writ of certiorari or exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction, none is available
to correct mere errors of fact or law unless
error is manifest and apparent on the face
of the proceedings such as when it is based
on clear ignorance or disregard of the
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or
gross failure of justice has occasioned
thereby.

15. In the Case of Jasbir Singh Vs.
State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"...while invoking the provisions
of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is
provided that the High Court would
exercise such powers most sparingly and
only in appropriate cases in order to keep
the subordinate courts within the bounds of
their
authority.
The
power
of
superintendence
exercised
over
the
subordinate courts and tribunals does not
imply that the High Court can intervene in
the judicial functions of the lower judiciary.
The independence of the subordinate courts
in the discharge of their judicial functions
is of paramount importance, just as the
independence of the superior courts in the
discharge of their judicial functions."

16. Against the order impugned by
which an application filed by the petitioner
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure was dismissed a remedy is
available to the petitioner to approach the
appellate/revisional forum. As per Section
96 of the CPC, an appeal shall lie from
every
decree
passed
by
any
Court
exercising original jurisdiction to the Court
authorised to hear appeals from the
decisions of such Court. Therefore, unless
the order rejecting an application filed
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is held to be a
decree, an appeal will not lie under Section
96 of the CPC. Order XLIII Rule 1 of the
CPC provides for appeals from orders. As
per Order XLIII of the CPC, an appeal is
not provided for as against an order
allowing or dismissing an application filed
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Section 2(2) of the CPC reads
as follows:-

"2. Definitions. -........

(2) "decree" means the formal
expression of an adjudication which, so far
as regards the Court expressing it,
conclusively determines the rights of the
parties with regard to all or any of the
matters in controversy in the suit and may
be either preliminary or final. It shall be
deemed to include the rejection of a plaint
and the determination of any question
withinSection 144, but shall not include -

(a) any adjudication from which
an appeal lies as an appeal from an order,
or

(b) any order of dismissal for
default.

Explanation.
-
A
decree
is
preliminary when further proceedings have
to be taken before the suit can be
completely disposed of. It is final when
such adjudication completely disposes of
the suit. It may be partly preliminary and
partly final."

17. A reading of the aforesaid
provision makes it clear that an order
rejecting a plaint shall be deemed to be a
decree, but it has not been provided in the
said section that an order dismissing an
application to reject a plaint is deemed to
be a decree. The word "deemed" is
commonly used for creating a statutory
fiction for extending the meaning to a
subject-matter
which
it
does
not
specifically designate.

18. In the case of CIT vs. Bombay
Trust Corporation reported in AIR 1930
4 All. Manoj Kumar Parashar & Anr. Vs. District Judge, Agra & Ors.
131
PC 54, it is stated that when a person is
"deemed to be" something, the only
meaning possible is that whereas he is not
in reality that something, the Act of
Parliament or the Legislature requires him
to be treated as if he were.". An
adjudication not fulfilling the requisites of
Clause 2 of Section 2 of the Code cannot be
said to be a "decree". By a legal fiction,
however, certain orders and determinations
are deemed to be "decree" within the
meaning of Section 2(2). When a statutory
fiction is created by a Legislature, it cannot
be ignored. The effect of such legal fiction
is that a position which otherwise is not
present, it is deemed to be present under the
specified circumstances. As stated above,
Section 2(2) of the Code specifically
provides that rejection of a pliant shall be
deemed to be a decree, but the Legislature
has consciously not included the order
dismissing an application for rejection of
plaint filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the
CPC within the deeming provision and
therefore, it is clear that an order seeking
rejection of the plaint cannot be deemed to
be a decree within the meaning of Section 2
(2) of the CPC. When an order cannot be
deemed to be a decree under Section 2(2)
of the Code, though the order decides an
important aspect of the trial affecting the
very valuable right of the defendant, it
cannot be held that an appeal will lie
against such an order, especially when no
appeal is provided against such an order
under Order 43 CPC.

19. In so far as the present case is
concerned the petitioner has directly
approached this Court under Article 227 of
Constitution of India against the order by
which
an
application
filed
by
the
defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11
was rejected by the court below.

20. In this view of the matter the
Court is of the opinion that the present
petition is not at all maintainable specially
due to the fact that a statutory alternative
remedy is available to the petitioner to file
a Civil Revision before the revisional court
as provided under Section 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.

21. In view of the same as stated
above, without interfering with the order
passed by the court below and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the present petition is disposed of
finally, permitting the petitioner to file a
revision as provided under Section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, if so advised.
----------
(2021)04ILR A131
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 2029 of 2020
(Civil)

Manoj Kumar Parashar & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
District Judge, Agra & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Amit Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi, Sri Anil
Kumar Sharma

(A) Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure
,1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order
22 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC -
Transfer of Property Act,1882 - Section 52
-
Transfer
of
property
pending
suit