# Pratap Fransis v. Akil Ahmad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 489
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-21
- **Case number:** First Appeal Defective No. 185 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pratap-fransis-v-akil-ahmad-ors-53714
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Whether a First Appeal under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is maintainable
against an order passed by a Court of Small
Causes (Additional District Judge exercising
Small Cause Court jurisdiction) rejecting an
objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 96, 104(1), Order 21 Rule 97, -
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 -
Sections 24 and 25 - First Appeal - filed
u/section 96 of the CPC - against rejection of an
objection moved under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. -
SSC Suit for eviction - objection was filed in
execution proceedings arising from an ex parte
eviction decree in suit - appellant claimed
ownership of the disputed property based on a
Will of year 2007 - said Will became effective
only after the death of the testator in 2016 -
whereas the SCC decree was passed in 2010 -
appellant also filed a separate Original Suit in
2025 challenging the SCC decree and asserting
ownership - Court held that, the impugned order
is not appealable under Section 24 of the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 -
Remedy lies in revision under Section 25 of the
PSCC Act, not in a first appeal under Section 96
CPC - therefore, present first Appeal stands
dismissed as not maintainable. (Para - 11)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
No any case was cited.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - and - Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887

LIST OF KEYWORDS
First Appeal - Maintainability - Small Cause
Court - Order 21 Rule 97 CPC - Execution
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Proceedings - Will - Ownership Claim - Ex parte
Decree - Revisional Jurisdiction

CASE ARISING FROM
Rejection of an objection under Order 21 Rule
97 CPC in Execution Case No. 1 of 2010 (Akil
Ahmad & another v. Nora Fransis) and ex-parte
decree in SCC Suit No. 48 of 2009.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Mr. Avinash Pandey
and Virendra Kumar.
Counsel for Respondent(s): not mentioned.

## Text

8 All. Pratap Fransis Vs. Akil Ahmad & Ors.
489
the disputes arising out of the contract
between the plaintiff and the defendants,
regarding the allotment of the disputed flat,
which has not been denied by the plaintiff,
as such, in view of the law laid down by the
Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Booz
Allen(supra)
and
Sundaram Finance
Limited(supra), the civil court has got no
jurisdiction in this matter. Further, the
Arbitral Tribunal is competent to grant the
relief of injunction under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In
view of this, the trial court has rightly
allowed the defendant?s application under
Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Section
8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act,1996 by holding that the Court has got
no jurisdiction in this matter, since there is
an arbitration agreement between the
parties pertaining to the subject-matter of
the suit.

14. Accordingly, the instant first
appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. is meritless
and is dismissed at the admission stage.
Consequently, the impugned judgment and
decree dated 24.01.2025 passed in Original
Suit No.120 of 2020 (Pramod Kumar vs.
Sahara India and others) is affirmed.

15. Interim order granted by this Court
on 7.03.2025, stands vacated.

16. Both the parties shall bear their
respective costs of this appeal.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 489
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal Defective No. 185 of 2025
Pratap Fransis ...Appellant
Versus
Akil Ahmad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Avinash Pandey, Virendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a First Appeal under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is maintainable
against an order passed by a Court of Small
Causes (Additional District Judge exercising
Small Cause Court jurisdiction) rejecting an
objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 96, 104(1), Order 21 Rule 97, -
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 -
Sections 24 and 25 - First Appeal - filed
u/section 96 of the CPC - against rejection of an
objection moved under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. -
SSC Suit for eviction - objection was filed in
execution proceedings arising from an ex parte
eviction decree in suit - appellant claimed
ownership of the disputed property based on a
Will of year 2007 - said Will became effective
only after the death of the testator in 2016 -
whereas the SCC decree was passed in 2010 -
appellant also filed a separate Original Suit in
2025 challenging the SCC decree and asserting
ownership - Court held that, the impugned order
is not appealable under Section 24 of the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 -
Remedy lies in revision under Section 25 of the
PSCC Act, not in a first appeal under Section 96
CPC - therefore, present first Appeal stands
dismissed as not maintainable. (Para - 11)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
No any case was cited.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - and - Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887

LIST OF KEYWORDS
First Appeal - Maintainability - Small Cause
Court - Order 21 Rule 97 CPC - Execution
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Proceedings - Will - Ownership Claim - Ex parte
Decree - Revisional Jurisdiction

CASE ARISING FROM
Rejection of an objection under Order 21 Rule
97 CPC in Execution Case No. 1 of 2010 (Akil
Ahmad & another v. Nora Fransis) and ex-parte
decree in SCC Suit No. 48 of 2009.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Mr. Avinash Pandey
and Virendra Kumar.
Counsel for Respondent(s): not mentioned.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The case was taken up on mention
by the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The instant first appeal under
Section 96 CPC has been filed impugning
the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the
court of Additional District Judge, Court
No.3, Meerut in Civil Misc. Case No.43 of
2025 (Pratap Fransis Vs. Akil Ahmad &
another) whereby the objector-appellant's
application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC
has been dismissed.

3. Office has raised a preliminary
objection that the instant appeal is not
legally maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that SCC Suit No.48 of 2009
(Akil Ahmad and another Vs. Nora Fransis)
was fraudulently decreed exparte on
18.02.2010 and thereafter, Execution Case
No.1 of 2010 (Akil Ahmad & another Vs.
Nora Fransis) was filed for evicting the
tenant and obtaining the possession of the
disputed premises, in which the objectorappellant had filed his objection under
Order 21 Rule 97 CPC on the ground that
he is the owner of the disputed property but
his objection has been dismissed illegally.
He further submitted that the appellant is
the owner of the disputed property on the
basis of the Will executed in his favour by
his father Fransis on 11.04.2007. He further
submitted that since the appellant is the
owner of the disputed property, as such, the
eviction decree cannot be executed by
dispossessing
the
objector
from
the
disputed property.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the
objector-appellant and perused the record.

6. It is well settled that in a SCC suit,
the title of the parties cannot be decided
and only the relationship of landlord and
tenant is to be seen between the parties and
on the basis of this relationship, S.C.C Suit
No.48 of 2009 was decreed on 18.02.2010
and for executing the eviction decree, an
Execution Case No.1 of 2010 was filed by
the decree holders in which the appellant
filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97
CPC, claiming himself to be the owner of
the disputed property, which has been
rejected by the impugned order, against
which the instant first appeal has been filed
by the objector/appellant.

7. It is apparent that the appellant is
claiming
ownership
of
the
disputed
property on the basis of registered Will
dated 11.04.2007 alleged to be executed by
his father Fransis, who died on 04.05.2016.
It is apparent that the Will became effective
on the death of his father but prior to that
S.C.C Suit No.48 of 2009 was decreed
exparte on 18.02.2010 against the first wife
of the appellant i.e. Nora Fransis, being the
tenant in the disputed premises.

8. It is also evident that the appellant
has filed Original Suit No.74 of 2025
(Pratap Fransis Vs. Akil Ahmad & another)
in which he has claimed himself to be the
owner of the disputed property on the basis
8 All. Vinod Kumar Jalaun Vs. Kailash Jaiswal
491
of the alleged Will of his father and has
also sought that the exparte decree dated
18.02.2010 passed in S.C.C Suit No.48 of
2009 (Akil Ahmad & others Vs. Nora
Fransis) be declared null and void. It is
apparent that the rights of the plaintiff are
to be decided in OS no.74 of 2025, which is
pending for disposal.

9. It is also pertinent to mention that as
per Section 24 of Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887 (PSCC Act), only an
order specified in clause (ff) or clause (h)
of Section 104 (1) CPC, 1908 made by
Court of Small Causes, is appealable.

10. Section 25 of the Act, 1887 as
applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh,
reads as under:-

"25. Revision of decrees and
orders of Courts of Small Causes.- The
District Judge, for the purpose of satisfying
himself that a decree or order made in any
case decided by a Court of Small Causes
was according to law, may of his own
motion, or on the application of an
aggrieved party made within thirty days
from the date of such decree or order, call
for the case and pass such order with
respect thereto as he thinks fit."

"Provided that in relation to any
case decided by a District Judge or
Additional District Judge exercising the
jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes, the
power of revision under this section shall
vest in the High Court."

11. It is apparent that the impugned
order is not an appealable order under
Section 24 of the P.S.C.C. Act and is only a
revisable order under Section 25 of the
P.S.C.C. Act, but the objector has filed
First Appeal under Section 96 CPC, which
is clearly not maintainable.

12.
Accordingly,
the
objection
regarding maintainability of the instant
appeal is upheld and consequently, the
instant appeal is dismissed as being not
legally maintainable.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 491
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

First Appeal No. 237 of 2006

Vinod Kumar Jalaun ...Appellant
Versus
Kailash Jaiswal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Arvind
Srivastava,
Akhilanand
Mishra,
Anand Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Rahul Sripat, Abhishek Mishra, Asheesh
Mani Tripathi, Ashok Mani Tripathi, C.K.
Parekh, D.V. Jaiswal, H.P. Dubey, K.N.
Mishra, Manish Goyal, Nipun Singh, Pankaj
Dubey, Pramod Kumar Jain, Rakesh Pande,
Raunak Parekh, Ravindra Kumar Tripathi,
Satish Mandhyan

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the sale deed was rightly declared
ineffective due to dishonour of the cheque and
the specific clause in the deed?
Whether the sale deed could be considered a
concluded and enforceable contract despite
non-payment of substantial sale consideration?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Section 96, Order 41 Rule 27 - Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 - Sections 54, 55(4)(b)