# State of U.P v. Shubham Srivastava & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1541
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-17
- **Case number:** Application U/S 378 No. 30 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar, Mrs. Babita Rani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-shubham-srivastava-ors-54684
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

4 All. State of U.P. Vs. Shubham Srivastava & Ors.
1541
(2026) 4 ILRA 1541
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.

Application U/S 378 No. 30 of 2024

State of U.P. ...Applicant
Versus
Shubham Srivastava & Ors. ...Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
Whether the victim and his father have corroborated the date, time, place, and manner of offence and have
proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, but learned Trial Court, discarding the evidence of best
witness/victim, has recorded unreasonable finding and same is required to be interfered by this court by
granting leave to appeal.

Head Notes
The Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 377, 504 & 506; The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012- Sections 3 & 4;The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 378(3)- That
offence was said to have been committed on 09.04.2020 and medical was conducted on
16.04.2020, and therefore, there may not be a chance of having found any injury on his person
by that time after a gap of almost seven days. But the fact remains that it was the burden of the
prosecution to explain as to why the First Information Report was not registered immediately
after commission of the offence and same is best known to the complainant- Only fact
established on record is that the prosecution version is not supported by the medical evidence,
which may be best piece of evidence to show the complicity of accused in commission of
offence- There is no dispute that the samples preserved by PW4 were not sent for DNA testing.
Therefore, the medical evidence is not in support of the version of prosecution and the
applicants have failed to point out any prima facie fault in the appreciation of medical evidence
by the learned Trial Court

Defence from the very inception that complainant was tenant of accused's father and was under
the obligation to pay the outstanding arrears of electricity charges pending against him, due to
which there was heated exchange of words between the complainant and father of accused and
in order to avoid the liability of payment, present malicious prosecution has been launched
against him-The elder brother of the victim has been shown as eyewitness of the occurrence, but
he was not examined as witness by the prosecution- Victim has blown hot and cold in same
breath and light of admission made by PW1, even if at a time it appeared that he corroborated
the story of prosecution, possibility cannot be ruled out that the child has been tutored to
depose against the accused and he is susceptible to be won over due to his tender age. If for the
sake of argument, it is assumed that some offence has been committed with the victim, then
also finding recorded by learned Trial Court that this child deposed at different places differently
and observed him not to be reliable witness, has guaranteed the presumption of innocence of
the accused, which cannot be taken away without any concrete and plausible evidence.
1542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held- Nothing adverse has been brought on record by the prosecution to hilt which may leave the tinge of
doubt-Memorandum of appeal does not survive and stands dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Ramesh and Others v. State of Haryana; (2017) 1 SCC 529; Jafarudheen vs State Of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC
440; Rajpal Singh v. Rajveer & Others; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2823; Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh
Prakash Ahuja & Another; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 451;

List of Acts
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012;The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Section 378 (3); CrPC; Nothing adverse; On record by prosecution; To hilt which may leave the tinge of doubt

Case Arising From
Prayer in this instant criminal miscellaneous application filed by state under Section 378(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, is to seek leave to appeal against the impugned order and judgement of acquittal
of sole respondent passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 50/2020, arising out of Case Crime
Number 293/2020, under Sections 377, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Police Station, Kotwali Nagar, District, Faizabad

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : G.A.
 Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Babita Rani, J.)

1. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-applicant.

2. Prayer in this instant criminal miscellaneous application filed by state under Section 378(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC' for brevity), is to seek
leave to appeal against the impugned order and judgement of acquittal of sole respondent
(hereinafter referred to as 'accused') passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Trial No.
50/2020, arising out of Case Crime Number 293/2020, under Sections 377, 504, 506 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for brevity) and Section 3/4 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO' for brevity), in Police
Station, Kotwali Nagar, District, Faizabad.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this application are that on
15.04.2020 at about 20:58 hours, the First Information Report bearing number 293/2020 was
registered against the accused in Police Station, Kotwali Nagar, Ayodhya, under Sections
377/504/506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO, on the basis of the written tehrir Ex.Ka.1
submitted by the informant, Vinay Kumar, with the averments that he, along with his family, has
been residing in the tenanted premises and on 09.04.2020, at about 10:00 AM, when his elder son
Matadin reached on the roof, he saw that accused Shubham was committing unnatural offence with
his minor son 'X' aged about seven years. On being confronted by Matadin, the accused started
abusing Matadin and threatened to eliminate him. PW5, constable Vijay Kumar Pandey, registered
4 All. State of U.P. Vs. Shubham Srivastava & Ors.
1543
the First Information Report against the accused and same was entered in the general diary of the
police station.

4. Investigation was thereafter carried out by PW6 sub- Inspector Vijayant Mishra. During
investigation, he recorded the statement of informant, victim and other factual witnesses. The
medical examination of the victim was conducted and statement of the concerned doctor was also
recorded. After collecting the entire material, finding prima facie incriminating evidence against
the accused and completing the entire formalities, the charge-sheet under Sections 377/504/506 of
IPC and Section of POCSO, was filed before the court concerned. Learned Trial Court, taking
cognizance of the offences, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for the trial. Learned Trial
Court framed the charges against the accused in the aforementioned sections, to which the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution opened its case and examined PW1 informant Vinay Kumar, PW2 victim
of the case, PW3 Qasim Mehendi, principal of the School who produced and proved the age of
victim at the time of occurrence, as well as PW4 Dr Dharmendra Rao. Apart from above factual
witnesses, PW5, constable Vijay Kumar Pandey and sub-inspector, Vijayant Mishra, investigating
officer PW6, were also examined as prosecution witnesses.

6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under
Section 313 of CRPC, in which the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated due to the
non-payment of rent and electricity bill arrears and dispute between the informant and his father. In
order to avoid the payment of outstanding rent arrears, a false story had been cooked up against
him only to pressurise him and extort money. The accused was given opportunity to adduce the
evidence oral as well as documentary in support of his innocence, but accused chose not to lead any
evidence, and consequently, his opportunity was closed.

7. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties and
considering the facts, circumstances and evidence available on record, passed the impugned order
and judgement acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him, which the state intends
to challenge in appeal, and hence the instant leave to appeal has been filed.

8. While pressing the application under Section 378(3) of CrPC, learned Additional
Government Advocate submitted that acquittal of accused vide impugned order and judgement,
carries substantial irregularity and illegality and the same has been passed ignoring the evidence
available on the record. Further contention is that the impugned judgement leads to patent
miscarriage of justice and the accused has been granted benefit of doubt considering the trivial
ground of delayed FIR, non-examination of independent witness and minor discrepancies arising
out of statements of PW1 and PW2 and heavily relying upon the defence of the accused, which is
erroneous and tantamount to grave miscarriage of justice with the victim and his family. Further
contention is that at the time of occurrence, the age of victim was of seven years and accused, while
taking advantage of his tender age and non-opposition, committed the grave and serious offence
which certainly would have been imprinted in the mind and memory of the victim forever. Such
type of offences against the children not only ruins their future but also weakens the society. In the
instant case, the victim and his father have corroborated the date, time, place, and manner of
1544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offence and have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, but learned Trial Court, discarding the
evidence of best witness/victim, has recorded unreasonable finding and same is required to be
interfered by this court by granting leave to appeal. Concluding the arguments, it has been stated
that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in chapter and verse, and
therefore, there are good chances of success in appeal and hence, the instant application deserves to
be allowed.

9. We have heard the arguments of the state and perused the record minutely and
meticulously.

10. Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it may be beneficial to refer to the
following pronouncements which deal with the scope of interference with a judgment of acquittal
at the appellate stage.

11. In Ramesh and Others v. State of Haryana; (2017) 1 SCC 529, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
made the following observations:

"24. We have duly appreciated the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties on both
sides. No doubt, the High Court was dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the trial court
which had acquitted the appellants herein. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal
is undoubtedly narrower than the scope of appeal against conviction. Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers upon the State a right to prefer an appeal to the High Court
against the order of acquittal. At the same time, sub-section (3) thereof mandates that such an
appeal is not to be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Thus, before an appeal is
entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained which means that normally
judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the
High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified
or reinforced by an order of acquittal. At the same time, while exercising its appellate power, the
High Court is empowered to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence before it. However,
this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are
substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of acquittal
recorded by the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal against the acquittal,
is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally
plausible.

*****

26. This legal position is reiterated in Govindaraju v. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 and the
following passage therefrom needs to be extracted: (SCC p. 732, paras 12-13)

12. The legislature in its wisdom, unlike an appeal by an accused in the case of conviction,
introduced the concept of leave to appeal in terms of Section 378 CrPC. This is an indication that
appeal from acquittal is placed on a somewhat different footing than a normal appeal. But once
leave is granted, then there is hardly any difference between a normal appeal and an appeal against
acquittal. The concept of leave to appeal under Section 378 CrPC has been introduced as an
4 All. State of U.P. Vs. Shubham Srivastava & Ors.
1545
additional stage between the order of acquittal and consideration of the judgment by the appellate
court on merits as in the case of a regular appeal. Sub-section (3) of Section 378 clearly provides
that no appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be entertained except with the
leave of the High Court. This legislative intent of attaching a definite value to the judgment of
acquittal cannot be ignored by the courts.

13. Under the scheme of CrPC, acquittal confers rights on an accused that of a free citizen. A
be nefit that has accrued to an accused by the judgment of acquittal can be taken away and he can
be convicted on appeal, only when the judgment of the trial court is perverse on facts or law. Upon
examination of the evidence before it, the appellate court should be fully convinced that the
findings returned by the trial court are really erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of
criminal law."

12. In Jafarudheen vs State Of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made
the following observations:

"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the
Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one,
particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal
adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to
be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the
presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double
presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on
the accepted legal parameters."

13. In Rajpal Singh v. Rajveer & Others; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2823, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that even where the appellate court re-appreciates the evidence while dealing with a
judgment and order of acquittal, the innocence attributed to the accused acquitted from the charges
of offences would be a weighty rebuttable factor. The relevant paragraph 9.2 is extracted here-inbelow:

"9.2 It is a well-settled principle enunciated by series of judgments of this Court that there
must exist "substantial and compelling reasons" to upset the acquittal. Once the court acquits the
accused, the presumption of innocence is reinforced. Thereafter, the interference by the appellate
court would be minimal and has to be guided by strong and cogent reasons. Reversal of acquittal
should not be a matter of course just because the other view is considered to be possible by the
appellate court. Even when the appellate court re-appreciates the evidence while dealing with the
judgment and order of acquittal, the innocence attributed to the accused acquitted from the charges
of offences would be a weighty rebuttable factor."

14. In Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Another; 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 451 the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations regarding the parameters that
must be considered while dealing with the applications seeking leave to appeal under Section 378
of CrPC:
1546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"7. The question as to how the application for grant of leave to appeal filed under Section
378(3) of the Cr.P.C. should be decided by the High Court and what are the parameters which the
High Court should keep in mind remains no longer res integra. This issue was examined by this
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 475. C.K.
Thakker, J. speaking for the Bench held in paras 19, 20, 21 and 24 respectively as under:

"19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal by the State in case of
acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no appeal "shall be entertained except with the leave of the
High Court". It is, therefore, necessary for the State where it is aggrieved by an order of acquittal
recorded by a Court of Session to file an application for leave to appeal as required by subsection
(3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is also true that an appeal can be registered and heard on merits
by the High Court only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the application filed under
sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code.

20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should
not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been
made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would
not be set aside.

21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of universal application that each
and every petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial
court must be allowed by the appellate court and every appeal must be admitted and decided on
merits. But it also cannot be overlooked that at that stage, the court would not enter into minute
details of the prosecution evidence and refuse leave observing that the judgment of acquittal
recorded by the trial court could not be said to be "perverse" and, hence, no leave should be
granted.

xxx xxx xxx

24. We may hasten to clarify that we may not be understood to have laid down an inviolable
rule that no leave should be refused by the appellate court against an order of acquittal recorded by
the trial court. We only state that in such cases, the appellate court must consider the relevant
material, sworn testimonies of prosecution witnesses and record reasons why leave sought by the
State should not be granted and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be
disturbed. Where there is application of mind by the appellate court and reasons (may be in brief)
in support of such view are recorded, the order of the court may not be said to be illegal or
objectionable. At the same time, however, if arguable points have been raised, if the material on
record discloses deeper scrutiny and reappreciation, review or reconsideration of evidence, the
appellate court must grant leave as sought and decide the appeal on merits. In the case on hand, the
High Court, with respect, did neither. In the opinion of the High Court, the case did not require
grant of leave. But it also failed to record reasons for refusal of such leave.

*****
4 All. State of U.P. Vs. Shubham Srivastava & Ors.
1547

12. We are of the view that at the stage of considering grant of leave under sub-section (3) of
Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., a prima facie case should be looked into by the High Court, of course,
not ignoring the materials on record."

15. In the wake of above case laws and bare perusal of Section 378(3) of CrPC, it is needless
to say that Section 378(3) casts a restriction that has been put on the entertainment of appeal by
imposing a condition that leave of the High Court should first be obtained before any such appeal is
entertained and before granting the leave, High Court is permitted to review and reconsider the
evidence placed on record by the prosecution and while refusing leave to appeal, it shall indicate
the reasons for the refusal. Generally, the order of acquittal passed by the court shall not be
interfered with because the presumption of innocence of accused is further strengthen by acquittal
and it is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so.
Further, if the evaluation and appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court does not suffer from
illegality, manifest error or perversity and the main grounds on which it has based its finding is
reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal even if another
view is possible. The High Court has to determine whether a prima facie case is made out
warranting interference in the order of acquittal or not and only where any prima facie arguable
points are made out, the leave to appeal must be granted.

16. Now, we have to see the evidence on record and whether the findings made by learned
trial court bears any error or perversity while passing the impugned order of acquittal. Here, the
subjected offence was said to have been committed on 09.04.2020 between 10 AM-11 AM on the
terrace, the time when the complainant Vinay Kumar was out of his house for the purpose of
selling the vegetables. It has been alleged that as his elder son reached on terrace searching for his
younger brother 'X' (identity not disclosed being victim of case), he found the accused committing
unnatural offence with the minor son of complainant, aged about seven years. On being opposed
the same by his elder son, the accused ran away extending him filthy abuses and threats to life. As
per the prosecution, the entire incident was narrated to the complainant by his both sons and on
having the information of the incident, PW1 submitted the written complaint before the police
concerned and accordingly, the First Information Report was registered against the accused on
15.04.2020. After registration of First Information Report, the investigating officer got conducted
the medico-legal examination of the victim and obtained the report and recorded the statement of
doctor concerned. In order to prove its version, prosecution examined only two factual witnesses
i.e. PW1 and PW2.

17. Admittedly, PW1 is only the complainant and hearsay-witness and has no personal
knowledge about the incident, therefore, his evidence in the scenario of present case carries
negligible value. PW3 is the principal of the school, who has proved the age of the victim as seven
years at the time of occurrence which is uncontroverted and unchallenged. PW4 Dr. Dharmendra
Rao, has proved the medico legal examination report Ex.Ka.4 of the victim stating therein that
while examining the victim on 16.04.2020, he found no injuries on the person of the victim and
preserved his perianal, anal, oral swab in two slides and blood sample as well as nail clippings for
the purpose of DNA and handed over the same to the police concerned. From the perusal of
statement of PW4, it has been established on record that no injury was found on the person of
victim and the version of prosecution has not been supported by the medical evidence.
1548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. Needless to say that offence was said to have been committed on 09.04.2020 and medical
was conducted on 16.04.2020, and therefore, there may not be a chance of having found any injury
on his person by that time after a gap of almost seven days. But the fact remains that it was the
burden of the prosecution to explain as to why the First Information Report was not registered
immediately after commission of the offence and same is best known to the complainant. In the
attending circumstances, only fact established on record is that the prosecution version is not
supported by the medical evidence, which may be best piece of evidence to show the complicity of
accused in commission of offence. Further, there is no dispute that the samples preserved by PW4
were not sent for DNA testing. Therefore, the medical evidence is not in support of the version of
prosecution and the applicants have failed to point out any prima facie fault in the appreciation of
medical evidence by the learned Trial Court.

19. Accused has placed his defence from the very inception that complainant was tenant of his
father and was under the obligation to pay the outstanding arrears of electricity charges pending
against him, due to which there was heated exchange of words between the complainant and father
of accused and in order to avoid the liability of payment, present malicious prosecution has been
launched against him. PW1 and PW2 both factual witnesses have admitted the fact of their being
tenant of father of accused since the year of 2014. PW1 categorically admitted that on 13.04.2020,
he left the rented premises of accused and shifted to another rented accommodation on 15.04.2020
and after shifting, he filed the First Information Report against the accused on the same day. It is
not the case of complainant that he could not get the FIR lodged against the accused due to the
reason of his being tenant and was under fear of eviction and therefore after leaving the premises
only, he could dare to lodge the First Information Report against the accused, or due to the
commission of offence by the accused, he was forced to vacate the premises. The conjoint perusal
of facts and circumstances and conduct of complainant speaks in volume against the complainant
and his version.

20. Another circumstance which drew our immediate attention is that in the First Information
Report, the elder brother of the victim has been shown as eyewitness of the occurrence, but he was
not examined as witness by the prosecution. He may be the witness who could have corroborated
the testimony of victim PW2, against the accused regarding commission of an offence, but the
prosecution failed to examine him and best reason of the same may be known to him only. Law is
well settled that where the prosecution has the best evidence available with it, but despite that the
best evidence has not been produced or withheld, then the court may draw adverse inference
against the prosecution.

21. Now we will examine the credibility and reliability of the sole evidence of the victim of
the case in hand, PW1, aged about seven years at the time of occurence. Learned Trial Court before
permitting him to depose as witness examined his capacity and maturity to understand the question
and rational answering of same and after being satisfied that the child is capable to understand and
answer rationally, permitted him to testify. As a PW1, victim corroborated the allegations made in
First Information Report in his chief examination. During the cross examination, it was stated by
this witness that at the time of occurrence, he was not on the terrace, rather was down. Similarly, he
testified that there was a dispute between his father and father of the accused regarding the
outstanding amount of electricity charges of the rented premises and his father was obliged to pay
4 All. Amarkant Vijaywar & Ors. Vs. Vipnesh Kumar & Ors.
1549
the same being tenant. PW1 further admitted that the present case lodged against the accused is
false and has been filed maliciously by his father. PW1, although in one breath has tried to produce
the allegations not only in his chief but also in his cross examination that he suffered the atrocities
of unnatural offence at the hand of accused, but on next moment testified that entire prosecution
was malicious and an attempt to get rid of payment of rental dues. Thus, this witness has blown hot
and cold in same breath. Therefore, in light of admission made by PW1, even if at a time it
appeared that he corroborated the story of prosecution, possibility cannot be ruled out that the child
has been tutored to depose against the accused and he is susceptible to be won over due to his
tender age. If for the sake of argument, it is assumed that some offence has been committed with
the victim, then also finding recorded by learned Trial Court that this child deposed at different
places differently and observed him not to be reliable witness, has guaranteed the presumption of
innocence of the accused, which cannot be taken away without any concrete and plausible
evidence.

22. On the basis of norms set up by settled legal principles and on the basis of evidence placed
on record, we have gathered the view that learned Trial Court has taken best probable view as
outcome of the case in hand while discussing the entire facts and circumstances. Nothing adverse
has been brought on record by the prosecution to hilt which may leave the tinge of doubt. No
arguable points have been made out by the applicants that would convince us to grant the leave of
appeal. The purpose of Section 378(3) of CrPC is to ensure that the accused is not kept waiting for
years for a relief which may be granted to him at early stage to save his right of life and personal
liberty.

23. Keeping in view the aforesaid failure of prosecution to establish any prima facie ground
warranting interference with the order of the learned Trial Court, the prayer for grant of leave to
appeal is hereby refused and the instant application is dismissed accordingly. Resultantly, the
memorandum of appeal does not survive and stands dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1549
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Civil Revision No. 38 of 2025

Amarkant Vijaywar & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
Vipnesh Kumar & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC as the suit was barred by Order
II Rule 2 CPC and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and, and whether the order impugned be set
aside and the plaint be rejected.