# Smt. Shikha Agarwal v. Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 920
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-25
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 21 of 2023
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shikha-agarwal-v-sanjeev-garg-deceased-ors-54763
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

9 All. Smt. Shikha Agarwal Vs. Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) & Ors.
921
Chandan Sharma, Shubham Tripathi

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the trial court had
erred in law in rejecting plaintiff's suit under O.
VII R. 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure on
ground that it was barred u/s 206 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, without examining distinct
character and usage of properties in question,
which
were
alleged
to
be
residential,
commercial, industrial, and non-agricultural in
nature, and therefore within the jurisdiction of
civil court.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. 7 R.
11(d), 96, 151 - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
- ss. 33(B), 108, 109, 206 - Specific Relief
Act, 1963 - s. 41(h) - UPZA & LR Act of
1950 - ss. 143, 144 - Plaintiff-appellant,
instituted Original Suit before Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Mathura, seeking a
declaratory decree to declare certain sale
deeds executed by her father, late Sanjeev
Garg, in favour of defendants as null
and
void,
along
with
permanent
injunction
restraining
them
from
interfering with her possession over
properties in dispute - It was pleaded
that suit properties, situated within
municipal
limits
and
used
for
residential, commercial, and industrial
purposes, were not agricultural lands
and thus jurisdiction of civil court was
rightly invoked - Defendants, moved
application under O. VII R. 11(d)
C.P.C.,
contending
that
suit
was
barred by Section 206 of U.P. Revenue
Code,
2006,
as
subject
matter
allegedly
pertained
to
agricultural
land
falling
within
jurisdiction
of
revenue court - Trial court accepted
objection and dismissed suit as barred
by law - Aggrieved thereby, plaintiff
preferred instant First Appeal u/s 96
C.P.C. before High Court, contending
that trial court erred in treating all
properties
as
agricultural
despite
clear
averments
and
documentary
evidence
indicating
their
nonagricultural, urban and commercial
character.
Held: From the pleadings of plaintiff in plaint, it
is very much apparent that she is claiming
ownership of 1/2 share in various residential
and commercial properties of her late father
who died on 12.5.2009, such as, ancestral
residential three storeyed building and godown
situated in Nayaganj, Ghaziabad, marriage
home and banquet hall namely Imperial Garden
and Heritage-Inn situated on Hapur road
Ghaziabad, in immovable property of Messers
Aarti Steels Ltd and several other immovable
property - Since, the properties are prima-facie
residential, commercial and industrial property
as such, on ground that some of disputed
property is agricultural, the whole plaint cannot
be rejected under O. 7 R. 11 CPC - In respect of
said property, plaintiff is entitled to claim relief
of declaration and permanent injunction from
civil court, regarding which revenue court has
got no jurisdiction - Even defendants in their
application under O. 7 R. 11 CPC, mentioned
that plaintiff never remained in possession of
agricultural
and
non-agricultural
properties
mentioned in paragraph 4 of plaint - It is
apparent that even defendants accepted that
some disputed property mentioned in plaint was
non-agricultural. sir short the sentence in a
legalistic
tone
-
In
view
of
facts
and
circumstances, trial court erred in law by
rejecting entire plaint on the premise that all
disputed properties were agricultural and relief
was barred u/s 206 of U.P. Revenue Code -
Since multiple properties are involved, matter
ought to have been decided on merits after
framing issues and recording evidence
-
Summary rejection of plaint amounts to grave
illegality, rendering impugned order perverse
and unsustainable in law - Accordingly, appeal
has merits and is liable to be allowed. [Paras 28,
29, 30] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Private
Limited, (2018) 11 SCC 780; Sri Boyenepally
Srijayavardhan v. V. Nirupama Reddy and
others, Civil Appeal No.9904 of 2025 -
relied on

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006;

## Text

920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SC/ST Act,
therefore,
the
principles
enunciated in the above judgements will
apply to the proceedings under Section
14(A) of SC/ST Act.

19. Further, it is also pertinent to
mention that present prosecution has been
lodged after a delay of more than six
months and as per prosecution version, the
victim (opposite party no. 2) continued to
make repeated request to the appellant and
the co-accused Bijendra to return the
earnest money even after the incident of
rape and abuse by using the caste name was
committed with her on 10.7.2022.

20. In view of the above, present
prosecution is nothing but an abuse of
process of the Court as it has been lodged
with the intent and purpose of putting
pressure on the appellant to return the
earnest money received by him. The refund
of earnest money is a civil dispute for
which civil remedy lies.

21. The Hon?ble Supreme Court
in
the
latest
judgement
of
S.N.
Vijayalakshmi vs. State of Karnataka,
2025 INSC 917 (2025 LiveLaw (SC)
758) has held that where the allegation
purely reflects civil dispute, no criminal
prosecution can be initiated on its basis.
Similar view has been expressed by
Hon?ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet
Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013)
11 SCC 673 and in C. Subbiah @
Kadambur Jayaraj and Ors. Vs. The
Superintendent of Police and Ors.,
2024 INSC 416. Already the appellant
and the co-accused are facing a criminal
case on identical facts filed by the
opposite party no. 2. It is also wroth to
note that the present prosecution has been
lodged after a delay of more than six
months, which raises question on the
intent and purpose of filing the present
prosecution

22. In view of the principles laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohd Wazid (supra) and Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani (supra) by carefully going
through the allegation in the instant
complaint and the attending facts and
circumstances
of
the
case,
entire
proceedings are liable to quashed against
the appellant herein and the appeal is
liable to be allowed.

23. Accordingly, present appeal
stands allowed. The impugned order
dated 23.7.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut in
Complaint
No.
26
of
2023
(Smt.
Amarwati vs. Chandrakesh Bhardwaj and
another), under Sections 406, 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC and Section
3(2)5
SC/ST
Act,
Police
Station
Kankarkheda, District Meerut are hereby
set aside against the appellant herein.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 920
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 21 of 2023

Smt. Shikha Agarwal ...Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Anshul
Kumar
Singhal,
Vinod
Kumar
Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
9 All. Smt. Shikha Agarwal Vs. Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) & Ors.
921
Chandan Sharma, Shubham Tripathi

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the trial court had
erred in law in rejecting plaintiff's suit under O.
VII R. 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure on
ground that it was barred u/s 206 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, without examining distinct
character and usage of properties in question,
which
were
alleged
to
be
residential,
commercial, industrial, and non-agricultural in
nature, and therefore within the jurisdiction of
civil court.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. 7 R.
11(d), 96, 151 - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
- ss. 33(B), 108, 109, 206 - Specific Relief
Act, 1963 - s. 41(h) - UPZA & LR Act of
1950 - ss. 143, 144 - Plaintiff-appellant,
instituted Original Suit before Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Mathura, seeking a
declaratory decree to declare certain sale
deeds executed by her father, late Sanjeev
Garg, in favour of defendants as null
and
void,
along
with
permanent
injunction
restraining
them
from
interfering with her possession over
properties in dispute - It was pleaded
that suit properties, situated within
municipal
limits
and
used
for
residential, commercial, and industrial
purposes, were not agricultural lands
and thus jurisdiction of civil court was
rightly invoked - Defendants, moved
application under O. VII R. 11(d)
C.P.C.,
contending
that
suit
was
barred by Section 206 of U.P. Revenue
Code,
2006,
as
subject
matter
allegedly
pertained
to
agricultural
land
falling
within
jurisdiction
of
revenue court - Trial court accepted
objection and dismissed suit as barred
by law - Aggrieved thereby, plaintiff
preferred instant First Appeal u/s 96
C.P.C. before High Court, contending
that trial court erred in treating all
properties
as
agricultural
despite
clear
averments
and
documentary
evidence
indicating
their
nonagricultural, urban and commercial
character.
Held: From the pleadings of plaintiff in plaint, it
is very much apparent that she is claiming
ownership of 1/2 share in various residential
and commercial properties of her late father
who died on 12.5.2009, such as, ancestral
residential three storeyed building and godown
situated in Nayaganj, Ghaziabad, marriage
home and banquet hall namely Imperial Garden
and Heritage-Inn situated on Hapur road
Ghaziabad, in immovable property of Messers
Aarti Steels Ltd and several other immovable
property - Since, the properties are prima-facie
residential, commercial and industrial property
as such, on ground that some of disputed
property is agricultural, the whole plaint cannot
be rejected under O. 7 R. 11 CPC - In respect of
said property, plaintiff is entitled to claim relief
of declaration and permanent injunction from
civil court, regarding which revenue court has
got no jurisdiction - Even defendants in their
application under O. 7 R. 11 CPC, mentioned
that plaintiff never remained in possession of
agricultural
and
non-agricultural
properties
mentioned in paragraph 4 of plaint - It is
apparent that even defendants accepted that
some disputed property mentioned in plaint was
non-agricultural. sir short the sentence in a
legalistic
tone
-
In
view
of
facts
and
circumstances, trial court erred in law by
rejecting entire plaint on the premise that all
disputed properties were agricultural and relief
was barred u/s 206 of U.P. Revenue Code -
Since multiple properties are involved, matter
ought to have been decided on merits after
framing issues and recording evidence
-
Summary rejection of plaint amounts to grave
illegality, rendering impugned order perverse
and unsustainable in law - Accordingly, appeal
has merits and is liable to be allowed. [Paras 28,
29, 30] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Private
Limited, (2018) 11 SCC 780; Sri Boyenepally
Srijayavardhan v. V. Nirupama Reddy and
others, Civil Appeal No.9904 of 2025 -
relied on

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006; Specific Relief Act, 1963; UPZA &
LR Act of 1950
922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
First Appeal under Section 96 C.P.C.; Order 7
Rule 11(d) C.P.C.; Suit barred by law; Section
206 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Declaratory
relief; Permanent injunction; Null and void sale
deeds; Jurisdiction of civil court; Bar of
jurisdiction; Agricultural land; Residential and
commercial
property;
Industrial
property;
Municipal limits; Urban area; Revenue records;
Nature and character of land; Non-agricultural
use; Determination of jurisdiction; Summary
rejection
of
plaint;
Material
illegality;
Jurisdictional error;
Erroneous exercise
of
jurisdiction; Unsustainable in the eyes of law;
Set aside; Trial court directed to proceed in
accordance with law.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal No. -
21 of 2023
From the judgment and decree dated 3.12.2022
passed by the court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) / FTC, Ghaziabad in O.S. No. 782 of
2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Anshul Kumar Singhal, Vinod Kumar Agrawal

Advs. for the Respondent:
Chandan Sharma, Shubham Tripathi

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

 1. The instant appeal under Section
96 CPC has been preferred by the plaintiff
against judgment and decree dated 3.12.2022
passed by the court of Civil Judge(Senior
Division) / FTC, Ghaziabad in O.S. no. 782
of 2021 Smt. Shikha Agrawal Vs. Sanjeev
Garg (Deceased) through LR's whereby, the
plaintiffs suit has been rejected under Order 7
Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that plaintiff
has sought the relief of declaration and
permanent injunction regarding immovable
property which is an agricultural land, which
can only be granted by revenue Court.

2. Factual matrix is that the
plaintiff Smt.Shikha Agrawal filed O.S. no.
782 of 2021 against his real brother
Sanjeev Garg(died during pendency of suit)
with the averments that their father
Satyaprakash Garg died on 12.5.2009
leaving behind his wife Smt. Premlata
Garg, daughter Shikha Agrawal(plaintiff)
and son Sanjeev Garg(defendant) as his
legal heirs. It was further averred that the
defendant died during pendency of suit on
8.3.2022
leaving
behind
his
wife
Smt.Vandana Garg and sons Shaurya
Garg,Dhairya Garg. Smt.Premlata Garg
also died on 22.3.2020. She further averred
that on the death of her parents, she and the
legal heirs of deceased defendant became
the joint owners of all movable and
immovable property left behind by her
parents, in which she is having 1/2 share.

3. The plaintiff further averred that
at the time of the death of her parents, they
were having the following immovable
properties:-

 (i)An ancestral residential three
storyed building and godown etc. having
no. 24 and 25 (new no. 27 & 28) situated in
Naya Ganj, Ghaziabad in which her father
was having one third share and after his
death, she and the defendant each became
owners in possession of one sixth share.

 (ii)Marriage home and banquet
hall namely Imperial Garden and HeritageInn, which were constructed about 25 30
years back, situated on Hapur road,
Ghaziabad, which were used as a single
unit, which were having 10 foot high
boundary, having two permanent gates,
each having 5000 ft covered area having
permanent roof, air-conditioned banquet
halls, having common toilets, five large
guest rooms with attached toilets, office
blocks, pantry in an area of about 3000 ft
covered area, etc. were situated. The
9 All. Smt. Shikha Agarwal Vs. Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) & Ors.
923
marriage hall was constructed by his late
father with Mahesh Chand Garg and Bharat
Bhushan Garg which was completely
residential,
commercial
and
nonagricultural property situated in khasra No.
448 m, 526, 527, 544 and 543 m having
area of 10,090 m situated in village
Dasna Ghaziabad. She further averred that
the above property was situated within
Ghaziabad city, on the Ghaziabad Hapur
road,
which
was
residential
and
commercial property of her father, towards
east of which was a developed multistoreyed residential colony namely Ansal
Garden Enclave developed by Ansal
builders, towards west was Hapur road,
thereafter densely populated Govind Puram
residential
scheme
of
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority
which
was
established 30 35 years back, towards
north was Ganga Puram residential colony
and towards South was Ansal Garden
Enclave
and
Flora
Garden
Enclave
residential colonies. She further averred
that in the above properties, her father was
having one third share and after his death,
she and the defendant each are co-owners
of one sixth share.

 (iii)Immovable property situated
in Hindon civil airport, Ghaziabad which
was situated within the city, which was
residential and commercial, having khasra
number 116 m, 125 m, 130/3, 131 m, 132
m, 133 m and 142, total area 18,850 m
situated in village Sikandarpur, Pargana
Loni, tehsil and District Ghaziabad in which
her father was having two thirds share, and
after his death, she and the defendant each
was having one third share. The above
residential
land
was
situated
within
Ghaziabad city, in between densely populated
Rajendra Nagar and Hindon Air Force
Station etc. which was never used in the
lifetime of her father and thereafter, for
agricultural purposes. Her father in the year
2000
established
B.K.Usha
Education
Society on the above land and started
establishing a college. Subsequently, a lease
deed dated 10.8.2018 was executed in favour
of Excellency the Governor U.P., for
establishing civil airport.

 (iv)An
immovable
property
situated in the industrial, residential area
developed
by
UP
State
Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd and Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority in
village Surajpur, Greater Noida, Gautam
Buddha Nagar about 35 years back in the
year 1985 in which Messers Aarti Steel
Rolling Mills Ltd(incorporated in 1986)
which was merged in the year 2004 in
Messers Aarti Steels Ltd, which was situated
in khasra No. 236 and 237 having area of
4660 m and khasra No. 234 area 5533 m,
the half portion of which amounting to 2766
square metre belonged to her father. In the
above land of Messers Aarti Steels, in the
industrial area industrial sheds, machines,
equipments, more than 30 rooms, three large
halls, toilets, etc were constructed in the
lifetime of her father, which was never used
in the lifetime of her father and after his
death, for agricultural purposes. In this
property also after the death of her father, she
and the defendant, each was having one half
share. She further averred towards east of the
above property, there was a reserved bird
sanctuary, towards west was Shriram Enclave
residential colony, towards north was Arya
Samaj Temple and densely populated area,
towards South was Dadri Surajpur Noida
main road thereafter, Lotus Park multistoreyed
residential
project,
UPSIDC
industrial area and Dharampal market etc. are
situated.

 (v)Land of khasra no. 1857, 1876
Ka, 1876kha, and 1879 m, total area 7,836
924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
square metre situated in village Sadarpur,
Ghaziabad which is situated between fully
developed Govind Puram, established by
Ghaziabad Development Authority and
other private property, which was fully
residential
and
was
situated
within
Ghaziabad city, towards west was E-Block
Govindpuram,
towards
east
was
Kailashpuram residential colony, towards
north was Kailashpuram residential colony
and towards South was service road and
thereafter, C-Block Govindpuram was
situated, in which her father was having
one third share and after his death, she and
the defendant each is having one sixth
share.

4. She further averred that all the
above-mentioned movable and immovable
properties
of
her
late
father
were
residential, commercial, industrial and nonagricultural and after the death of her father
and mother, she and the defendant ,are the
legal heirs, each is owner in possession of
one half share of the above mentioned
properties.

5. She further averred that the
defendant was trying to misappropriate the
above mentioned properties illegally and
intended to usurp the plaintiffs right and
share in the above mentioned properties
and was threatening to alienate, sell, lease,
mortgage, and create charge in the above
properties in favour of third parties, so as to
cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff.

6. She further averred that the
defendant was illegally selling the above
immovable properties. The defendant in
collusion with other co-owners in khasra
no. 1857, 1876 kha, 1879, 1880,1883 and
1876 ka, having total area of 1.4420
hectare(ha), has already sold 3414 m land in
khasra no. 1879, 2280 m in khasra no.
1880, 890 m in khasra number 1883 i.e
0.6584 hectare through illegal sale deeds. She
further averred that in the above land having
area of 1.4420 ha, her father was having one
third share of 0.4806 ha and after the death of
her father, she and the defendant, each is
owner of half share of 0.2403 ha. She further
averred that the defendant has already sold
0.2194 ha of his one third share and only
0.0209 ha share of defendant in the above
land is remaining whereas, her whole share
0.2403 ha, is still intact.

7. She further averred that the
defendant has also filed a case under section
372 of the Indian Succession Act for
obtaining the succession certificate of her late
father regarding the bank fixed deposit and
savings account deposits left behind by her
late father on the false ground of being the
sole heir of her late father by filing
Miscellaneous Case number 186 of 2020,
Sanjeev Garg versus Shaurya Garg and
others, in the court of Civil Judge Senior
Division,
Ghaziabad
by
fradulently
impleading his sons as defendants. The
defendant has deliberately with the malfide
intention, not impleaded her as a party in that
case. Besides that, the defendant also filed a
false affidavit in that case, in which he stated
that he was the only legal heir of his late
father.

8. She further averred that during the
lifetime of her late father, his several
properties were acquired by the State of
Uttar Pradesh, regarding which several
Courts
have
awarded
enhanced
compensation for the land acquired, for
obtaining which, the defendant has filed
several execution cases in the court of
Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in
which also, the defendant has fradulently
stated that he is the only sole legal heir of
his late father.
9 All. Smt. Shikha Agarwal Vs. Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) & Ors.
925
9. She further stated that in the
property
mentioned
previously,
the
defendant has fradulently executed lease
deed in favour of his Excellency the
Governor of U.P. for three years w.e.f.
10.8.2018 till 9.8.2021, for consideration of
₹ 15,74,000, @ ₹ 200 per square metre, in
which she and the defendant are the legal
heirs of one half share after the demise of
her father, in which she is having share of ₹
7,87,000.

10. She also disclosed that previously
she instituted O.S. no. 492 of 2021 Shikha
Agrawal versus Sanjeev Garg in the court of
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ghaziabad, which
was withdrawn with the permission of the court
on 24.8.2021, for filing fresh suit.

11. The plaintiff claimed the following
reliefs:-

 (A) By decree of declaration granted
in her favour against the defendant, it be
declared that in the movable and immovable
property left behind by her late father
Satyaprakash
Garg
and
her
mother
Smt.Premlata
Garg,
which
have
been
mentioned in the plaint, she is having one half
share being the heir and owner in possession of
the disputed property.

 (B)By
decree
of
permanent
injunction granted in her favour against the
defendant, the defendant be restrained from
alienating, transferring, leasing, mortgaging,
creating charge, realising any rent, constructing,
digging, developing and altering the nature of
the
disputed
property
in
any
manner
whatsoever, etc. without effecting partition of
her share in the disputed property.

12. During the pendency of the
suit, the legal heir's of the deceased
defendant filed an application 38-C under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section
151 CPC with the averments that the
disputed immovable property mentioned in
the plaint was an agricultural property
regarding which, in the revenue records,
the name of the deceased defendant and his
legal heir's have been mutated. According
to the U.P. Revenue Code of 2006, the
married daughter has got no legal right in
the agricultural property. The defendants
further averred that the plaintiff had earlier
moved an application under Section 33(B)
of the U.P. Revenue Code of 2006 with the
averments that the mutation in the above
property should have been made in
accordance with the provisions of Hindu
Succession Act and the provisions of
Section 108 and 109 of the U.P. Revenue
Code are not applicable and the defendant
had got no right in the above property but
the above application of the plaintiff was
rejected by the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad on
14.3.2022 by holding that it was an
agricultural land and as such, according to
the U.P. Revenue Code of 2006, the
plaintiff had no legal right in it.

13. The defendants further averred
that the land situated in khasra number
1857, 1876ka,1876kha and 1879m situated
in village Sadarpur which was agricultural
land, was acquired wayback in the year
1988 by the Ghaziabad Development
Authority for establishing Govindpuram
scheme and on 14.12.1988 its possession
has already been handed to the above
Authority but, regarding this land also, the
plaintiff was seeking declaration of her
rights. The plaintiffs name is not recorded
as tenure-holder in the revenue records and
as such, the plaintiffs suit was barred by
Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

14. The defendants further averred
that since plaintiff was well aware that she
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was having share in the disputed property
left behind by her father, as such she should
have filed the suit for the relief of
declaration and injunction within three
years after the death of her father, but the
suit has been filed after about 12 years,
which was barred by limitation.

15. The defendants further averred
that
the
plaintiff
has
deliberately
undervalued the suit because the plaintiff
was never in possession of the entire
agricultural land and residential land. The
plaintiff should have valued the suit on the
market value of the disputed property and
should have paid the court fees ad-valorem.
The Court fees paid by the plaintiff was
insufficient and even on this ground, the
plaintiffs suit was barred.

16. The defendants further averred
that in the remaining agricultural land after
acquisition, situated in khasra number
1879,1880 and 1883, after the death of
plaintiff's father, the name of Sanjeev Garg
and Smt. Premlata Garg was mutated on
9.3.2010, regarding which sale deeds have
already been executed on 22.6.2011,
10.8.2011,
13.12.2011,
4.5.2012,
31.10.2012 and 22.2.2013 and the name of
purchasers, has already been mutated in the
revenue
records,
which
was
in
the
knowledge of the plaintiff from the date the
above sale deeds were executed and as
such, after 10 years, the plaintiff has got no
legal right to file the present suit, which
was barred by limitation.

17.
It
was
averred
by
the
defendants that due to the above reasons,
the plaintiff 's suit was barred by Section
206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, because the
court was not having jurisdiction to hear
the suit, because the suit was barred by
limitation,
because
the
suit
was
undervalued and insufficient Court fees
was paid by the plaintiff, the suit was
barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific
Relief Act as such, the plaintiffs suit be
dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

18. The plaintiff filed objections to
the defendants above application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC whereby she stated
that the defendants want to delay the
disposal of the suit by creating unnecessary
complications. The plaintiff has already
suffered serious injury because her interim
injunction application was pending for the
last one year. The High Court had directed
that the suit be decided expeditiously but
the defendants are violating the above order
of this Court. The defendant's right to file
written statement has already been closed
because it was not filed within the
stipulated time mentioned in Order 8 Rule
1 CPC. It was further submitted that the
grounds raised by the defendants in the
application can only be examined after
framing of issues and adducing evidence
which cannot be a ground for rejection of
plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. She
specifically submitted that the disputed
property was not an agricultural property,
which was not governed by the U.P.
Revenue Code regarding which the civil
court has got jurisdiction. She further
averred that the nature of the disputed
property, is to be decided on merits,
keeping in view, its usage and condition.

19. She specifically averred that
the disputed properties are completely
situated within the territorial limits of the
city, are non-agricultural properties, which
are used for commercial purposes, which
are not affected by the revenue entries and
the mutation in revenue records therein,
because it was illegal. It was further
submitted that the revenue records and
9 All. Smt. Shikha Agarwal Vs. Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) & Ors.
927
revenue entries are not proof of the
ownership, nature and usage of the disputed
property because indisputably the disputed
properties were being used for nonagricultural purposes, since long time. It
was submitted that the suit was neither
barred by Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue
Code nor by limitation. The application
was filed by the defendants by abusing the
process of law. All the pleas raised by the
defendant cannot be examined in an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, as
such, the defendants application was liable
to be rejected.

20. The trial court by impugned
order dated 3.12.2022 concluded that since
plaintiff claimed the relief of declaration
and
injunction
regarding
immovable
property situated in khasra No. 448 m, 526,
527, 544, 543 m,116 m,125 m, 130/3, 131
m, 132 m, 133 m, 142, 236, 237, 234, 1857,
1876ka, 1876kha and 1879 m, which
according to the khatauni paper no. 86-C,
63-C, 89-C and 87-C submitted by
plaintiff, are agricultural land, in which the
plaintiff was not recorded tenure holder,
there was no declaration under Section 143
and 144 of the UPZA & LR Act of 1950,
which was mandatory and in the absence of
such declaration, the land will be deemed
to be agricultural land. The trial court also
concluded that as per Section 206 of the
U.P.
Revenue
Code
the
declaration
regarding agricultural land can only be
granted by the revenue court as such, the
plaintiffs suit was barred by Order 7 Rule
11(d) CPC, aggrieved against which, the
plaintiff has filed the instant appeal under
Section 96 of the CPC.

21. Learned counsel for the plaintiff -
appellant submitted that the impugned order
of the trial court is perverse because the
disputed
property
was
residential,
commercial, industrial and non-agricultural
property, which was used for the abovementioned purposes, since very long time.
Learned counsel further submitted that even
if, it is assumed that some disputed property
was agricultural, even then, the whole suit
cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC because for the remaining nonagricultural property, the civil court was
having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed
by the plaintiff.

22.
Learned
counsel
for
the
defendant-respondents submitted that the
impugned order of the trial court is perfectly
legal, because the whole disputed property
was agricultural, the plaintiff was not
recorded as its tenure holder, as such, the
plaintiff had to obtain declaration of her
rights in that property, which can only be
granted by the revenue court. Learned
counsel submitted that since the whole
disputed property was agricultural, as such,
the plaintiff 's suit was barred by Section 206
of the U.P. Revenue Code. He further
submitted that a part of the property was also
situated in District Gautam Budhnagar,
regarding which no relief can be granted by
the Ghaziabad court, as such, the plaintiff 's
suit was also barred on this ground.

23. I have heard the learned counsel
of both the sides and perused the record.

24. It is apparent from the impugned
order that the trial court has not examined
the issue whether the plaintiff 's suit was
barred by limitation or not, as such, this
Court is also not examining that issue. The
trial court has only rejected the plaint on
the ground that the reliefs claimed by the
plaintiff can only be granted by the revenue
court since the civil courts jurisdiction was
barred under Section 206 of the U.P.
Revenue Code ,2006.
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25. The Apex Court in the case of
Sejal Glass Ltd. vs. Navilan Merchants
Private Limited (2018) 11 SCC 780, while
discussing whether the whole plaint can be
rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, held
as under:-

 8. In (Sree Rajah) Venkata
Rangiah Appa Rao Bahadur and Anr. v.
Secretary of State and Ors.A.I.R. 1931
Madras 175 at 176, the Madras High Court
held:

 Referring to Section 54 of the old
Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Judge
states that that Section only provides for the
rejection of a plaint in the event of any
matters specified in that Section not being
complied with and it does not justify the
rejection of any particular portion of a
plaint. Section 54 now corresponds to
Order7, Rule11, Code of Civil Procedure.
The plain meaning of that Rule seems to be
that if any of the defects mentioned therein
is found to exist in any case, the plaint shall
be rejected as a whole. It does not imply
any reservation in the matter of the
rejection of the plaint. Non-compliance
with the requisites of Section 80, Code of
Civil Procedure, was taken to be a ground
covered by Clause (d) of Rule 11, above
referred to. Even if it should be taken that
that Clause does not strictly apply to the
present case, I must hold that the suits are
liable to dismissal on account of noncompliance with Section 80, Code of Civil
Procedure.

 It was further found that if the
suit was dismissed for want of notice
against the Government Under Section 80
Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be
allowed to proceed against the other
Defendants
for
the
reason
that
the
Government's right to resume inam lands,
on the facts of that case, stands unaffected,
and that being so, the Plaintiff's claim to
recover possession of such lands from other
Defendants would also fall to the ground
for the simple reason that they have no
right then to resume those inams. It was,
therefore, held on the peculiar facts of that
case that for the reasons given the suit
would fail as a whole.

 *** *** ***

 10. We are afraid that this is a
misreading of the Madras High Court
judgment. It was only on the peculiar facts
of that case that want of Section 80 Code of
Civil Procedure against one Defendant led
to the rejection of the plaint as a whole, as
no cause of action would remain against the
other Defendants. This cannot elevate itself
into a Rule of law, that once a part of a
plaint cannot proceed, the other part also
cannot proceed, and the plaint as a whole
must be rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11. In
all such cases, if the plaint survives against
certain Defendants and/or properties, Order
7 Rule 11 will have no application at all,
and the suit as a whole must then proceed
to trial.

 (emphasis supplied)

26. The Apex Court in the case of
Sri Boyenepally Srijayavardhan vs. V.
Nirupama Reddy and others, Civil Appeal
No.9904 of 2025 while discussing rejection
of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, held
as under:-

 10. It is a well-settled principle of
law that where out of many reliefs claimed
in the plaint, the plaintiff is found entitled
to even one of them, the plaint cannot be
rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In
such circumstances, the suit must be tried
9 All. Smt. Shikha Agarwal Vs. Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) & Ors.
929
on the basis of evidence led by the parties.
Reliance may be placed upon the following
judgments:

 10.1. The case of Sejal Glass
Limited vs. Navilan Merchants Private
Limited (2018) 11 SCC 780 , is directly on
the point. Para 8 of the report reads as
follows:

 This cannot elevate itself into a
rule of law, that once a part of a plaint
cannot proceed, the other part also cannot
proceed, and the plaint as a whole must be
rejected under Order 7 Rule 11. In all such
cases, if the plaint survives against certain
defendants and/or properties, Order 7 Rule
11 will have no application at all, and the
suit as a whole must then proceed to trial.

 10.2. This principle was reiterated
in Central Bank of India & Anr. vs. Smt.
Prabha Jain & Ors. 2025 INSC 95 ,
wherein it was held in para 24 of the report
as follows:

 24. Even if we would have been
persuaded to take the view that the third
relief is barred by Section 17(3) of the
SARFAESI Act, still the plaint must
survive because there cannot be a partial
rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule
11 of the CPC. Hence, even if one relief
survives, the plaint cannot be rejected
under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC. In the
case on hand, the first and second reliefs as
prayed for are clearly not barred by Section
34 of the SARFAESI ACT and are within
the civil courts jurisdiction. Hence, the
plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7
Rule 11 of the CPC.

 10.3. The Court clarified the
scope of examination at the stage of Order
7 Rule 11 in Vinod Infra Developers Ltd.
vs. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. 2025 INSC 772
, wherein it was held in para 8 of the report
as follows:

 8. At this preliminary stage, the
court is required to confine its examination
strictly to the averments made in the plaint
and not venture into the merits or veracity
of the claims. If any triable issues arise
from the pleadings, the suit cannot be
summarily rejected.

27. It is apparent from the above
law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Sejal Glass Ltd.(supra) and Sri
Boyenepally Srijayavardhan (supra) that at
the preliminary stage, the court is required
to confine its examination strictly to the
averments made in the plaint and not
venture into the merits or the veracity of
the claims. It is also clear that if, any triable
issues arise from the pleadings, the suit
cannot be summarily rejected. It is also
clear that where out of many reliefs
claimed in the plaint, the plaintiff is found
entitled to even one of them, the plaint
cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC and in such circumstances, the suit
must be tried on the basis of evidence led
by the parties.

28. From the pleadings of the
plaintiff in the plaint, it is very much
apparent that she is claiming ownership of
1/2 share in the various residential and
commercial properties of her late father
Satyaprakash Garg who died on 12.5.2009,
such as, ancestral residential three storeyed
building and godown situated in Nayaganj,
Ghaziabad, marriage home and banquet
hall namely Imperial Garden and HeritageInn situated on Hapur road Ghaziabad, in
the immovable property of Messers Aarti
Steels Ltd and several other immovable
property. Since, the above properties are
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prima-facie residential, commercial and
industrial property as such, on the ground
that some of the disputed property is
agricultural, the whole plaint cannot be
rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In
respect of the above property, the plaintiff
is entitled to claim the relief of declaration
and permanent injunction from the civil
court, regarding which the revenue court
has got no jurisdiction.

29. Even the defendants in their
application 38-C under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, in paragraph 3, mentioned that the
plaintiff never remained in possession of
the
agricultural
and
non-agricultural
properties mentioned in paragraph 4 of the
plaint. It is apparent that even the
defendants accepted that some disputed
property mentioned in the plaint was nonagricultural.

30. In view of the above facts and
the circumstances, it is apparent that the
trial court committed material illegality in
rejecting the whole plaint on the ground,
that the whole disputed property is
agricultural, regarding which no relief can
be granted to the plaintiff by the civil
court and the relief sought by the plaintiff
is barred by section 206 of the U.P.
Revenue Code. It is also apparent that
several properties are involved in the
instant case as such, it was appropriate,
that the trial court decided the whole
issue on merits, after framing the issues
and adducing the evidence of both the
parties. In rejecting the plaint summarily,
the trial court committed a grave error,
which needs to be rectified by this Court,
in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
The impugned order is perverse and
unsustainable. Accordingly, this appeal
has merits and is liable to be allowed.

31. This appeal is hereby allowed.
Consequently, the impugned judgment and
decree of the trial court dated 3.12.2022 is
set aside. Defendants application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stands dismissed.
O.S. no. 782 of 2021 is restored to its
original number.

32. The trial court is directed to
decide the suit on merits, in accordance
with law, within six months, without fail,
from the date a certified copy of this order
is communicated to it, without granting
unnecessary adjournment to any side. The
trial court is also directed to hear the suit
day by day. District Judge, Ghaziabad is
directed to monitor the progress of the suit
closely and submit the progress report of
the suit, every 15 days to this Court.

33.
Registrar
compliance
is
directed to communicate a copy of this
order to the District Judge, Ghaziabad
within 24 hours.

34. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 930
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 148 of 2017

Km. Deepika Rani ...Appellant
Versus
Vinay Bansal & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Deepak Singh, Pramod Kumar Srivastava,
Rishi Bhushan Jauhari