# Santram v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 345
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-03
- **Case number:** Matter Under Article 227 No. 4747 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santram-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54648
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,1908 -
Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. - Rejection of
plaint - A plaint can be rejected under
Order VII, Rule 11 (a) C.P.C. where it does
not disclose any cause of action. Under
Order VII, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C., a plaint can
be rejected where the suit appears "from
the statement in the plaint" to be barred
by any law. For rejecting a plaint under
the
aforesaid
provisions,
only
the
statements made in the plaint have to be
examined. Statement in defence cannot
be considered for deciding an application
under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. Plea
regarding
concealment
of
fact,
discrepancy
in
the
description
of
boundaries of the property, or necessary
or proper party is not to be decided while
deciding an application under Order VII,
Rule 11 C.P.C. If any fact has been
concealed, it can be brought to the court's
notice by the defendants by filing a
written
statement
and
presenting
evidence in support thereof, and the same
can be adjudicated at the appropriate
stage. It will not give rise to rejection of
the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.
A mere discrepancy in the description of
boundaries of the property in dispute, as
given in the plaint and in the site plan,
does not attract any of the clauses of
Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of
the plaint. Plea that the Gaon Sabha is a
necessary or proper party can be raised
before the learned Trial court at the
appropriate
stage
and
need
not
be
examined while deciding an application
under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. In the
instant case, plaintiffs stated that they
have purchased the suit property through
a registered sale deed and that the
defendant is creating hindrance in the
enjoyment of the property. Court held that
the plaint discloses a cause of action and
cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule
11 C.P.C. (Para 13, 14, 15)
Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

10 All. Santram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
345
petitioner would be deemed to be the owner
of the property in question. The aforesaid
mutation proceedings would be carried out
within 30 days from the date of production
of certified copy of this order.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 345
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 4747 of 2024

Santram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rohit Kumar Singh, Akhilendra Kumar Goswami,
Harshit Singh, Shweta Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta, Pradeep Kumar Shukla

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,1908 -
Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. - Rejection of
plaint - A plaint can be rejected under
Order VII, Rule 11 (a) C.P.C. where it does
not disclose any cause of action. Under
Order VII, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C., a plaint can
be rejected where the suit appears "from
the statement in the plaint" to be barred
by any law. For rejecting a plaint under
the
aforesaid
provisions,
only
the
statements made in the plaint have to be
examined. Statement in defence cannot
be considered for deciding an application
under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. Plea
regarding
concealment
of
fact,
discrepancy
in
the
description
of
boundaries of the property, or necessary
or proper party is not to be decided while
deciding an application under Order VII,
Rule 11 C.P.C. If any fact has been
concealed, it can be brought to the court's
notice by the defendants by filing a
written
statement
and
presenting
evidence in support thereof, and the same
can be adjudicated at the appropriate
stage. It will not give rise to rejection of
the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.
A mere discrepancy in the description of
boundaries of the property in dispute, as
given in the plaint and in the site plan,
does not attract any of the clauses of
Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of
the plaint. Plea that the Gaon Sabha is a
necessary or proper party can be raised
before the learned Trial court at the
appropriate
stage
and
need
not
be
examined while deciding an application
under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. In the
instant case, plaintiffs stated that they
have purchased the suit property through
a registered sale deed and that the
defendant is creating hindrance in the
enjoyment of the property. Court held that
the plaint discloses a cause of action and
cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule
11 C.P.C. (Para 13, 14, 15)
Dismissed. (E-5)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ahilendra Kumar
Goswami, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Atul Kumar Mishra, the
learned counsel for the State, Sri Pankaj
Gupta, the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2/Gaon Sabha, Sri Indrajeet
Shukla, the learned counsel for the opposite
parties no.3 to 7 and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has challenged the
validity of an order dated 09.12.2022,
passed in Regular Suit No.1481 of 2003 by
the
learned
Civil
Judge,
Junior
Division/FTC-II,
Gonda,
whereby
the
petitioner's application under Order VII,
Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint has
been rejected. The petitioner has also
challenged the validity of a judgment and
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 04.09.2024, passed in Revision
No.16 of 2023 by the learned Additional
District Judge/F.T.C.-II, Gonda, whereby
the revision has been dismissed and the
order dated 09.12.2022, passed by the
learned Civil Judge has been affirmed.

3. The opposite parties have filed
the aforesaid suit for declaration and
perpetual injunction claiming that they
have purchased the property in dispute
through a registered sale deed and the
petitioner is creating hindrance in their
enjoyment of the property in dispute.

4. The petitioner has filed a written
statement in the suit and thereafter he filed
an application under Order VII, Rule 11
C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The
opposite parties have stated that the plaint
does not disclose the title of the plaintiffs,
the
pleadings
are
incomplete
and
misleading and it has been filed without
seeking permission of the court and under a
conspiracy. Therefore, the plaint is liable to
be rejected. The application was not
supported by any affidavit.

5. The learned trial court found
that in para 5 of the plaint the plaintiffs
have submitted that the defendant is
disputing the title of the plaintiffs and
therefore a cause of action has accrued.
Accordingly, the trial court rejected the
application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.

6. In revision, the learned
Additional District Judge also found that
there is no ground for rejection of the plaint
under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) (d) C.P.C. and
there is no illegality in the order passed by
the learned trial court.

7. Assailing the validity of the
aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that there are
major concealment of facts in the plaint. He
submitted that there is some discrepancy in
the boundaries of the land in dispute given
in the plaint and those given in the site plan
forming a part of the plaint.

8. The learned counsel for the
petitioner lastly submitted that the dispute
between the parties has already stands
finally decided by a previous decree, which
has been concealed while filing the suit.

9. Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.
provides as follows:

"O.7. R.11. Rejection of
plaint. -The plaint shall be rejected
in the following cases:-
(a)where
it
does
not
disclose a cause of action;
(b)where the relief claimed
is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to
correct the valuation within a time
to be fixed by the Court, fails to do
so;
(c)where the relief claimed
is properly valued, but the plaint is
returned upon paper insufficiently
stamped, and the plaintiff, on being
required by the Court to supply the
requisite stamp-paper within a time
to be fixed by the Court, fails to do
so;
(d)where the suit appears
from the statement in the plaint to
be barred by any law :
(e)[where it is not filed in
duplicate;] [Inserted by the Code
of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act,
1999, Section
17
(w.e.f.
1.7.2002).]
(f)[ where the plaintiff fails
to comply with the provisions of
10 All. Santram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
347
rule 9:] [Substituted by the Code of
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
2002, Section 8, for sub-Clauses (f)
and (g)(w.e.f. 1.7.2002)(as inserted
by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1999, Section17
(w.e.f. 1.7.2002).]
[Provided that the time
fixed
by
the
Court
for
the
correction of the valuation or
supplying of the requisite stamppaper shall not be extended unless
the Court, for reasons to be
recorded, is satisfied that the
plaintiff was prevented by any
cause of an exceptional nature form
correcting
the
valuation
or
supplying the requisite stamp-paper
, as the case may be, within the
time fixed by the Court and that
refusal to extend such time would
cause
grave
injustice
to
the
plaintiff.] [Added by the Code of
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
1976,
Section
72
(w.e.f.
1.2.1977).]"

10. A plaint can be rejected under
Order VII, Rule 11 (a) C.P.C. where it does
not disclose any cause of action. Under
Order VII, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. a plaint can
be rejected where the suit appears from the
statement in the plaint to be barred by any
law. The plaintiffs have stated that they
have purchased the suit property through a
registered sale deed and that the defendant
is creating hindrance in enjoyment of the
property. Therefore, the plaint discloses a
cause of action and it cannot be rejected
under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.

11. Under Order VII, Rule 11 (d)
C.P.C. a plaint can be rejected where the
suit appears "from the statement in the
plaint'' to be barred by any law. For
rejecting a plaint under the aforesaid
provisions merely statements made in the
plaint have to be examined. The statement
in defence cannot be examined for
deciding an application under Order VII,
Rule 11 C.P.C.

12. A mere discrepancy in the
description of boundaries of the property in
dispute given in the plaint and in the site
plan, does not attract any of the clauses of
Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of
plaint. Concealment of fact regarding any
previous decree is also not a ground as
while deciding an application under Order
VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. the court is merely
required to examine the averments made in
the plaint itself.

13. In case any fact has been
concealed, that can be brought to the court's
notice by the defendants by filing a written
statement and giving an evidence in
support thereof, which will be decided at
the appropriate stage. It will not give rise
for rejection of the plaint under Order VII,
Rule 11 C.P.C.

14. Although, it is stated in the
application that the suit has wrongly been
filed without seeking permission of the
court, the learned counsel for the petitioner
could not point out any provision of law
under which the plaintiff was required to
obtain leave of the court before filing a suit
for declaration and permanent injunction.

15. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has also submitted that gaon
sabha has not been impleaded as a party in
the suit. From the pleadings contained in
the plaint it does not appear that the gaon
sabha is a necessary party to the suit. In
case the gaon sabha is a necessary or
proper party, this plea can be raised before
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the learned trial court at the appropriate
stage and this plea is also not required to be
examined while deciding an application
under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.

16. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, this court is of the considered
view that there is no illegality in the
impugned orders dated 09.12.2022 and
04.09.2024. The petition lacks merit and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 348
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 482 Nos. 5413 of 2024 & 2283
of 2023

Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Kumar Singh
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Abhishek Singh, Gautam Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Departmental proceedings and Criminal
Proceedings-Four
persons
violated
the
lockdown guidelines and abused and assaulted
the police personnel-FIR lodged-disciplinary
proceeding also initiated- if an accused has
been exonerated and held innocent in the
disciplinary proceedings -then the criminal
prosecution premised on the same/identical set
of allegations cannot be permitted to continue-
criminal proceedings set aside.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. P.S. Rajya Vs St. of Bihar, 1996 (9) SCC 1

2. Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs St. of Raj. (2013) 11
SCC 130

3. Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs St. of W.B. &
anr.(2011) 3 SCC 581

4. Ashoo Surendranath Tewai (Supra) Vs Deputy
Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & anr.,
reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636

5. J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy Vs Directorate of
Enforcement, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 370

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Subject matter of both the
application(s) filed by the applicant namely
Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Kumar Singh
relates to Case Crime/FIR No. 0271 of
2020, under Section 323, 504, 506, 307,
332, 353, 188, 270 IPC, P.S.- Kakori,
District-Lucknow and as such the same are
being decided by means of this common
order/judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri S.P. Tiwari, learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. APPLICATION U/S 482 No.
5413 of 2024 has been filed seeking
following main relief:

"to set aside the impugned
order dated 04.06.2024 passed by
Learned Court Additional District
and Session Judge, Court No. 21,
Lucknow in the Session Case No.
1907 of 2023 bearing title "State of
U.P. Vs Anoop Kumar Gupta &
Others" arising out of charge sheet
bearing No 01 dated 14.07.2020
submitted in F.I.R. No. 0271/2020,
Under
Section
323/504/506/307/332/353/188/270