# Pankaj Rastogi v. Mohd. Sazid & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 258
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-30
- **Case number:** THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARRAF J. First Appeal No. 30 of 2024
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pankaj-rastogi-v-mohd-sazid-anr-51648
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 151 & O. VII R. 11 - Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 - S. 12-A - Commercial
dispute
-
Settlement
through
Prelitigation mediation - Significance - Trial
Court rejected the application for urgent
interim relief holding it imaginary and
further on the ground that mandatory
provision of pre-litigation mediation could
not
have
been
bypassed
-
Validity
challenged - Earlier also the plaintiff filed
a suit without seeking any urgent interim
reliefs and subsequently withdrew it -
Effect - Held, mandatory nature of Section
12-A of the Act underscores the legislative
intent to promote alternative dispute
resolution
mechanisms,
particularly
mediation, as a preferred method for
resolving commercial disputes - The trial
court has correctly examined the position
and held that mandatory provision of
Section 12-A of the Act should have been
complied with by the appellant. (Para 9
and 15)

Appeal disposed of. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
firm. The law makes a great presumption in
favour of the genuineness of a holograph
Will for the very good reason that the mind
of the testator in physically writing out his
own Will is more apparent in a holograph
Will than where his signature alone
appears to either a typed script or to a
script written by somebody else."

(emphasis supplied)

The writing of the Will and
signature of the testator are admitted.
There is also due and proper attestation in
accordance with the relevant statutory
provisions. No suspicious circumstance
appears on the face of the document, Ex. P1. The Will appears to be moderate and
rational. Viewed from the above angle,
there is a great presumption ? even
bordering on actual proof of the due
execution and attestation of the Will.

16. Defendants have urged a few
suspicious circumstances and have alleged
that the Will was executed by the undue
influence
exercised
by
the
plaintiff.
Notwithstanding
the
high
degree
of
presumption available in the case of a
holograph Will, which on the face of it,
appears to be properly and duly executed
and attested, have the defendants let in
cogent
evidence
to
offset
the
said
presumption and/or have succeeded in
proving the special plea set up by them,
falls
for
our
consideration.
In
our
considered view, the answer can be only in
the negative."

15. So far as the right to receive
probate of the Will dated 1.1.1996 is
concerned, it is not disputed that in the trust
deed dated 19.12.1995, Basantji was
appointed as Chairman/Caretaker Trustee
and even in the Will dated 1.1.1996, it was
clearly mentioned that Basantji, being the
Caretaker Trustee would enforce the Will
by appointing the trustee from the family of
Late Dr. Ram Nath Verma. Therefore,
Basantji being Caretaker Trustee as well as
Chairman of the trust, has right to seek
probate of the Will dated 1.1.1996 for the
purpose, specified in the Will dated
1.1.1996 as per Section 248 read with
Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act.

16. In view of the above, this Court is
of the view that the order dated 22.5.2013
passed by Additional District Judge-I,
Court No. 1, Faizabad in Misc. Non-related
Case No. 17 of 2000 is erroneous and,
therefore, deserves to be set aside.

17. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 22.5.2013 is set aside with further
direction to Additional District Judge-I,
Court No. 1, Faizabad to issue probate in
favour of the appellant as per Sections 248
read with Section 222 of the Indian
Succession Act for the purpose specified in
the Will dated 1.1.1996.

18.

With
the
aforesaid
observation, the appeal is allowed.

19. The office is directed to remit the
record of the court below.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 258
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARRAF J.

First Appeal No. 30 of 2024

Pankaj Rastogi ...Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Sazid & Anr. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Mohd. Arif

Counsel
for
the
Respondent:
3 All. Pankaj Rastogi Vs. Mohd. Sazid & Anr.
259
A. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 151 & O. VII R. 11 - Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 - S. 12-A - Commercial
dispute
-
Settlement
through
Prelitigation mediation - Significance - Trial
Court rejected the application for urgent
interim relief holding it imaginary and
further on the ground that mandatory
provision of pre-litigation mediation could
not
have
been
bypassed
-
Validity
challenged - Earlier also the plaintiff filed
a suit without seeking any urgent interim
reliefs and subsequently withdrew it -
Effect - Held, mandatory nature of Section
12-A of the Act underscores the legislative
intent to promote alternative dispute
resolution
mechanisms,
particularly
mediation, as a preferred method for
resolving commercial disputes - The trial
court has correctly examined the position
and held that mandatory provision of
Section 12-A of the Act should have been
complied with by the appellant. (Para 9
and 15)

Appeal disposed of. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. M/s Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd.
& anr. Vs IDBI Bank Ltd. & ors.; 2022 SCC
OnLine Cal 3951

2. Yamini Manohar Vs T K D Keerthi; 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 2653

3. Yamini Manohar Vs T K D Keerthi; 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1382

4. Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. & ors.Vs Rakheja
Engineers Pvt. Ltd.; (2022) 10 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Sarraf,
J.)

1. This is a first appeal against an
order dated October 31, 2023, wherein the
application
filed
by
the
respondents/defendants under Order VII
Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 in Original Suit
No.15 of 2023 was allowed and the plaint
filed by the appellant/plaintiff was rejected.

2. Upon perusal of the impugned
order, it appears that the trial court
enquired into the earlier factual matrix of
the case and indicated that earlier a suit
being Original Suit No.4 of 2022 was filed
by the appellant without any application
made for any urgent interim relief.
Subsequently, the applicant sought to
withdraw the said suit by way of making an
application. The applicant also sought
liberty to file a fresh suit. The said suit was
allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated
January 3, 2023.

3. Thereafter, second suit being Suit
No.15 of 2023 was filed by the appellant
along with an application seeking urgent
interim relief. It was noted by the trial court
that in the first suit, no prayer for grant of
urgent interim relief was made by the
appellant.
Therefore,
the
trial
court
concluded that the prayer made for urgent
interim relief is "imaginary" and Section
12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which
mandates pre-litigation mediation, could
not have been bypassed.

4. Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M/s
Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure
Ltd. and Another v. IDBI Bank Ltd. and
Others, reported in, 2022 SCC OnLine
Cal 3951, the Delhi High Court in Yamini
Manohar v. T K D Keerthi, reported in
2022 SCC OnLine Del 2653 which was
affirmed by the Supreme Court in
Yamini Manohar v. T K D Keerthi,
reported in, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382 to
buttress his argument that in a trademark
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suit,
there
is
always
an
urgency.
Accordingly, the provision of Section 12A
of the Act was not needed to be complied
with by the appellant.

5. Per contra, Sri Mohd. Arif, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents
has
submitted
that
the
aforesaid judgments relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would not apply to the instant
case, as the factual matrix in the instant
case is different from those cases insofar is
it clear that there was no urgency
demonstrated by the appellant in the instant
case. This is further evident from the fact
that the appellant filed the first suit without
any application seeking urgent interim
relief. He further submitted that the trial
court has, in detail, examined the facts and
only thereafter concluded that the urgency
contemplated in the present plaint is
imaginary in nature.

Analysis and Conclusion

6. I have heard the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties.

7. Before delving into the controversy
in the instant case, I feel it pertinent to
extract Section 12A of the Act herein as
under:

"12A. Pre-litigation Mediation
and Settlement.-(1) A suit, which does not
contemplate any urgent interim relief under
this Act, shall not be instituted unless the
plaintiff exhausts the remedy of prelitigation mediation in accordance with
such manner and procedure as may be
prescribed by rules made by the Central
Government.

(2) For the purposes of prelitigation
mediation,
the
Central
Government
may,
by
notification,
authorise-

(i) the Authority, constituted
under the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987 (39 of 1987); or

(ii) a mediation service provider
as defined under clause (m) of Section 3 of
the Mediation Act, 2023.

(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), the Authority or
mediation service provider authorised by
the Central Government under sub-section
(2) shall complete the process of mediation
within a period of one hundred and twenty
days from the date of application made by
the plaintiff under sub-section (1):

Provided that the period of
mediation may be extended for a further
period of sixty days with the consent of the
parties:

Provided further that, the period
during which the parties spent for prelitigation mediation shall not be computed
for the purposes of limitation under the
Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963).

(4)
If
the
parties
to
the
commercial dispute arrive at a settlement,
the same shall be reduced into writing and
shall be signed by the parties and the
mediator.

(5)
The
mediated
settlement
agreement arrived at under this section
shall be dealt with in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of the
Mediation Act, 2023.]"

8. In the landscape of the Indian
commercial laws, Section 12A of the Act
stands as a pivotal provision, delineating a
framework for pre-institution mediation
and settlement of commercial disputes.
This
provisions
places
emphasis
on
mediation as a preferred method to resolve
commercial disputes before they escalate
3 All. Pankaj Rastogi Vs. Mohd. Sazid & Anr.
261
into
protracted
legal
battles.
The
significance of Section 12A of the Act lies
not only in its attempt to decongest the
overburdened judicial system but also in its
promotion of efficiency, cost-effectiveness,
and party autonomy in dispute resolution.
India's courts are inundated with a
staggering backlog of cases, including
commercial disputes, which often leads to
significant delays in the dispensation of
justice.
By
mandating
pre-litigation
mechanism, Section 12A of the Act acts as
a gatekeeper, diverting disputes away from
the already congested court dockets and
towards a more expeditious resolution
process. This not only relieves pressure on
the judiciary but also ensures timely
redressal for the parties involved, thereby
enhancing the overall efficiency of the
legal system.

9. Moreover, the mandatory nature of
Section 12A of the Act underscores the
legislative intent to promote alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly
mediation, as a preferred method for
resolving commercial disputes. In doing so,
it reflects a broader global trend towards
embracing consensual and collaborative
approaches to conflict resolution, as
opposed to the adversarial nature of
traditional litigation. By making prelitigation mediation compulsory, Section
12A of the Act institutionalizes the shift
towards a more mediation-friendly legal
framework, thereby fostering a culture of
dispute resolution that prioritizes amicable
settlement
over
prolonged
courtroom
battles.

10. In Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd.
and Others v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt.
Ltd., reported in, (2022) 10 SCC 1, the
Supreme
Court
expounded
on
the
significance of Section 12A of the Act, and
its mandatory nature. Relevant paragraph
of the aforesaid judgment is delineated
below:

"99.1.The Act did not originally
contain Section 12-A. It is by amendment in
the year 2018 that Section 12-A was
inserted. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons are explicit that Section 12-A was
contemplated as compulsory. The object of
the Act and the Amending Act of 2018,
unerringly point to at least partly foisting
compulsory mediation on a plaintiff who
does not contemplate urgent interim relief.
The provision has been contemplated only
with reference to plaintiffs who do not
contemplate urgent interim relief. The
legislature has taken care to expressly
exclude the period undergone during
mediation for reckoning limitation under
the Limitation Act, 1963. The object is
clear.

99.2. It is an undeniable reality
that courts in India are reeling under an
extraordinary docket explosion. Mediation,
as an alternative dispute mechanism, has
been identified as a workable solution in
commercial matters. In other words, the
cases under the Act lend themselves to be
resolved through mediation. Nobody has an
absolute right to file a civil suit. A civil suit
can be barred absolutely or the bar may
operate unless certain conditions are
fulfilled. Cases in point, which amply
illustrate this principle, are Section 80CPC
and Section 69 of the Partnership Act.

99.3. The language used in
Section 12-A, which includes the word
"shall", certainly, goes a long way to assist
the Court to hold that the provision is
mandatory. The entire procedure for
carrying out the mediation, has been spelt
out in the Rules. The parties are free to
engage counsel during mediation. The
expenses, as far as the fee payable to the
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mediator, is concerned, is limited to a onetime fee, which appears to be reasonable,
particularly, having regard to the fact that
it is to be shared equally. A trained
mediator can work wonders.

99.4.
Mediation
must
be
perceived as a new mechanism of access to
justice. We have already highlighted its
benefits. Any reluctance on the part of the
Court to give Section 12-A, a mandatory
interpretation, would result in defeating the
object and intention of Parliament. The fact
that the mediation can become a nonstarter, cannot be a reason to hold the
provision not mandatory. Apparently, the
value judgment of the lawgiver is to give
the provision, a modicum of voluntariness
for the defendant, whereas, the plaintiff,
who
approaches
the
court,
must,
necessarily, resort to it. Section 12-A
elevates the settlement under the Act and
the Rules to an award within the meaning
of Section 30(4) of the Arbitration Act,
giving it meaningful enforceability. The
period spent in mediation is excluded for
the purpose of limitation. The Act confers
power to order costs based on conduct of
the parties."

11. The Supreme Court in Patil
Automation (supra), further reiterated that
non-compliance with Section 12A of the
Act would lead to rejection of the plaint
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. Relevant paragraphs
are extracted herein below:

"92. Order 7 Rule 11 declares
that the plaint can be rejected on 6
grounds. They include failure to disclose
the cause of action, and where the suit
appears from the statement in the plaint to
be barred. We are concerned in these cases
with the latter. Order 7 Rule 12 provides
that when a plaint is rejected, an order to
that effect with reasons must be recorded.
Order 7 Rule 13 provides that rejection of
the plaint mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11
does not by itself preclude the plaintiff from
presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the
same cause of action. Order 7 deals with
various aspects about what is to be pleaded
in a plaint, the documents that should
accompany and other details. Order 4 Rule
1 provides that a suit is instituted by
presentation of the plaint to the court or
such officer as the court appoints. By virtue
of Order 4 Rule 1(3), a plaint is to be
deemed as duly instituted only when it
complies with the requirements under
Order 6 and Order 7. Order 5 Rule 1
declares that when a suit has been duly
instituted, a summon may be issued to the
defendant to answer the claim on a date
specified therein. There are other details in
the order with which we are not to be
detained. We have referred to these rules to
prepare the stage for considering the
question as to whether the power under
Order 7 Rule 11 is to be exercised only on
an application by the defendant and the
stage at which it can be exercised.
***

94.3. Order 7 Rule 11 does not
provide that the court is to discharge its
duty of rejecting the plaint only on an
application. Order 7 Rule 11 is, in fact,
silent about any such requirement. Since
summon is to be issued in a duly instituted
suit, in a case where the plaint is barred
under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the stage begins
at that time when the court can reject the
plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. No doubt it
would take a clear case where the court is
satisfied. The Court has to hear the plaintiff
before it invokes its power besides giving
reasons under Order 7 Rule 12. In a clear
case, where on allegations in the suit, it is
found that the suit is barred by any law, as
would be the case, where the plaintiff in a
3 All. Pankaj Rastogi Vs. Mohd. Sazid & Anr.
263
suit under the Act does not plead
circumstances to take his case out of the
requirement of Section 12-A, the plaint
should
be
rejected
without
issuing
summons.
Undoubtedly,
on
issuing
summons it will be always open to the
defendant to make an application as well
under Order 7 Rule 11. In other words, the
power under Order 7 Rule 11 is available
to the court to be exercised suo motu. (See
in this regard, the judgment of this Court in
Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju [Madiraju
Venkata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddigari
Ramachandra Reddy, (2018) 14 SCC 1] .)"

12. One may also make reference to
the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in
Odisha Slurry Pipeline (supra), wherein
the Court had outlined that in absence of a
prayer for urgent interim reliefs, a suit
cannot be instituted without mandatory
compliance of Section 12A of the Act. The
Calcutta High Court further stated that
merely an application for urgent interim
reliefs would not be sufficient, and if the
court comes to a finding that the urgent
interim
reliefs
contemplated
are
not
justified, it may reject the plaint. Relevant
paragraphs have been extracted below:

"The law as it stands today is
that the suit which does not contemplate
any urgent interim reliefs cannot be
instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the
mandatory remedy provided under Section
12A of the Act; however the position would
be different when the suit contemplates an
urgent
interim
relief.
The
language
employed in Section 12A of the Act does
not conceive the situation that even if the
urgent interim reliefs are prayed in the suit
instituted by the plaintiff, the leave under
Order 12A of the said Act is required from
the Court. What can be reasonably
deciphered from the said provision that if
the suit contemplates any urgent interim
relief it served the purposes and cannot be
said to be bad defective and/or invalid as
the pre- institution mediation has not been
exhausted. Does it mean that mere seeking
an urgent interim relief suffice the purpose
or the Court may apply its mind to find out
whether their exits a circumstances for
such urgent interim relief? The aforesaid
section is silent in this regard simply
because one of the reliefs claimed in the
plaint uses the expression 'urgent interim
reliefs' is sufficient enough to confirm the
legislative mandate even if such urgent
interim reliefs appears to be farcical and
intended to avoid the rigour of Section 12A
of the Act. The urgent interim relief is an
expression of wide import and difficult to
give exhaustive meaning. It varies from a
case to a case and, therefore, there is no
impediment on the part of the Court at the
time of presentation the plaint to apply to
its mind to find out whether it involves any
urgent interim reliefs. Any other Course
adopted by the Court would give a free
handle to an unscrupulous plaintiff to
override the mandatory provision of
Section 12A by incorporating a relief which
cannot be said to be an urgent interim
reliefs nor the facts and circumstances or
the cause of action pleaded in the plaint
entitles the plaintiff to such relief on a bare
reading of the averments made in the
plaint. Often an application for urgent
interim reliefs are filed in the suit and
ultimately if the Court may not find any
justification in passing such interim relief
yet it would sub-serve the motive and the
purpose of avoiding the pre-institution
mediation as mandated under Section 12A
of the Code. We do not find any restriction
or a fetter in the language employed in the
aforesaid section that the Court at the time
of presentation of the plaint or even
thereafter finds that it does not involve an
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
urgent interim relief to reject the plaint and
direct the plaintiff to exhaust the remedy
under Section 12A of the Act.

However, the Division Bench of
the Delhi High Court in case of Chandra
Kishore Chaurasia Vs. R. A. Perfumery
Works Pvt. reported in FAO (COMM) 128
of 2021 decided on 27.10.2022 interpreted
the expression "contemplated any urgent
interim reliefs" used in Section 12A of the
Act is relatable to a qualification of the
category of the suit and determinant upon
the frame of the plaint and the reliefs
sought therein."

13. The Delhi High Court in the case
of Yamini Manohar (supra), which arose
from a suit seeking permanent injunction
restraining infringement of trademark and
passing off, had come to a finding that the
plaint contained averments with regard to
urgency and upheld the order of the
commercial court with regard to the
conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff
contemplated grant of urgent relief. This
matter went up to the Supreme Court in T
K D Keerthi's case (supra), wherein the
Supreme Court laid down the following
ratio:

"7. We are of the opinion that
when a plaint is filed under the CC Act,
with a prayer for an urgent interim relief,
the commercial court should examine the
nature and the subject matter of the suit,
the cause of action, and the prayer for
interim relief. The prayer for urgent interim
relief should not be a disguise or mask to
wriggle out of and get over Section 12A of
the CC Act. The facts and circumstances of
the case have to be considered holistically
from the standpoint of the plaintiff. Nongrant of interim relief at the ad-interim
stage, when the plaint is taken up for
registration/admission and examination,
will not justify dismissal of the commercial
suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code;
at times, interim relief is granted after
issuance of notice. Nor can the suit be
dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the
Code, because the interim relief, post the
arguments, is denied on merits and on
examination
of
the
three
principles,
namely,
(i)
prima
facie
case,
(ii)
irreparable harm and injury, and (iii)
balance of convenience. The fact that the
court issued notice and/or granted interim
stay may indicate that the court is inclined
to entertain the plaint.

8. Having stated so, it is difficult
to agree with the proposition that the
plaintiff has the absolute choice and right
to paralyze Section 12A of the CC Act by
making a prayer for urgent interim relief.
Camouflage and guise to bypass the
statutory
mandate
of
pre-litigation
mediation
should
be
checked
when
deception and falsity is apparent or
established. The proposition that the
commercial courts do have a role, albeit a
limited one, should be accepted, otherwise
it would be up to the plaintiff alone to
decide whether to resort to the procedure
under Section 12A of the CC Act. An
'absolute and unfettered right' approach is
not justified if the pre-institution mediation
under Section 12A of the CC Act is
mandatory, as held by this Court in Patil
Automation Private Limited (supra). The
words 'contemplate any urgent interim
relief' in Section 12A(1) of the CC Act, with
reference to the suit, should be read as
conferring power on the court to be
satisfied. They suggest that the suit must
"contemplate", which means the plaint,
documents and facts should show and
indicate the need for an urgent interim
relief. This is the precise and limited
exercise that the commercial courts will
undertake, the contours of which have been
3 All. Fagoo Ram & Ors. Vs. Ram Laut (Died) & Ors.
265
explained in the earlier paragraph(s). This
will be sufficient to keep in check and
ensure that the legislative object/intent
behind the enactment of section 12A of the
CC Act is not defeated."

14. Based on the aforementioned
judicial
pronouncements,
it
can
be
conclusively inferred that the invocation of
urgent relief should not serve as a pretext to
circumvent or evade Section 12A of the
Act. It is imperative that the factual matrix
and contextual intricacies of each case are
comprehensively
assessed
from
the
plaintiff's perspective. The Supreme Court,
in its wisdom, has expounded that any
attempt to cloak or disguise the true intent
behind seeking such relief, with the
intention of sidestepping the statutory
obligation
of
pre-litigation
mediation,
warrants scrutiny, particularly in instances
where duplicity and falsehood are manifest
or substantiated.

15. In the instant case, it is clear that
the plaintiff did not show any urgency as he
had earlier filed a suit without seeking any
urgent interim reliefs and then withdrew
the same. Subsequently, he filed a suit
along with an application for seeking ex
parte urgent interim relief. Under these
circumstances, I am of the view that the
trial court has correctly examined the
position and held that mandatory provision
of Section 12(A) of the Act should have
been complied with by the appellant.

16. Having considered the facts and
circumstances, I am, however, of the view
that for the ends of justice the order passed
by the trial court rejecting the plaint may be
set aside and modified with a direction
upon the appellant to approach the
mediation centre as per Section 12(A) of
the Act.

17. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated October 31, 2023, rejecting the plaint
of the appellant is set aside and the
appellant/plaintiff is directed to approach
the mediation centre within a period of
seven days from date. After completion of
the above mediation process, the plaint
should be presented in accordance with
law.

18. With the aforesaid directions, the
instant appeal is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 265
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Second Appeal No. 54 of 2024

Fagoo Ram & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Ram Laut (Died) & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Prabhat Kumar, Rajendra Prasad Verma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mohan Singh

A. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100 - Substantial question of law
-
UP
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Ss. 122-C and 123 -
Settlement of land - Condition to be
fulfilled for claiming right u/s 123 -
Consequence of failure - Held, first a
person would have to assert that he
comes under the categories provided
under sub-section (3) of Section 122-C
and the land in question is of categories as
provided under sub-section (2) of Section
122-C and he has built a house on the
same - Further held, the plea taken by the
appellants is not sufficient for claiming the