Sanjay Pandey And Anr. Vijay Krishna Pandey v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pankaj Kumar Singh

1. Heard Ms. Saima Khan, learned counsel for the revisionists. None appear for the respondent, despite the name of several counsel has been shown as counsel for the respondent, hence, the Court has proceeded to hear the revision in absence of the respondent.

2. The instant civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 CPC assailing the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda in Regular Suit No.230/2017, whereby the application of the revisionists under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the respondent, who is the plaintiff of Regular Suit No.230/2017 instituted a suit for injunction. In the said suit, he had pleaded that he had received exclusive right in respect of the property in question, on the basis of a family settlement arrived at between the parties, which was an outcome of a compromise which was verified in R.S. No.78/1992 before the Civil Judge, Gonda. The said compromise was also accompanied by a list of properties and in terms whereof the properties vested in the hands of the respondent were clearly shown in the list of the properties in Schedule-A whereas the properties forming part of Schedule-B and C was received by the revisionists No.1 and 2.

4. It is urged that in the plaint though the plaintiff-respondent claimed 2 CLRE No. 105 of 2019 rights on the basis of the said compromise but the manner in which he has described the property in the plaint included the property which was given to the revisionists in the said compromise and this was clearly a case of non-disclosure of a subsisting cause of action coupled with the fact that if the plaint of the plaintiff-respondent is read, it would indicate that the cause of action as pleaded has not been clearly mentioned nor the plaintiff has the right to sue and this aspect has been ignored by the trial Court, hence, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has incorrectly been rejected on the premise that the ground raised required adjudication and it being a mixed question of law and fact and this could only be decided at a later stage.

5. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it will be worthwhile to notice that the trial Court by means of its order dated 12.09.2019 rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC primarily on the ground that the question raised by the revisionists was a mixed question of law and facts which can only be decided after framing issues and permitting parties to lead evidence.

6. Assessing the aforesaid reasons of the trial Court in context with the averments made in the plaint, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.2, wherein Para-2 and 17, the plaintiff has mentioned the properties which he received in terms of the settlement which was the subject matter of compromise arrived at in a suit bearing No.78/1992, from a perusal of the averments made by the revisionists in their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.3, it would indicate that the thrust of the entire contention is that three plots numbers which were given to the plaintiff-respondent and it was described by the specific area as mentioned in the said compromise, which is at running Page-26 to 29 of the paper-book.

7. In this background, it is urged that out of the total area of the three plots which allegedly were given to the plaintiff-respondent, only some part of the area was mentioned in the compromise, hence, only that portion could vest with the plaintiff-respondent. It was not as if the entire plots had been given to the plaintiff rather the remaining area vested with the 3 CLRE No. 105 of 2019 revisionists, who are real brothers. It is thus urged that this very fact has not been appropriately considered and it was a case where on the face of the record, the plaintiff though basing his right on the compromise, yet he was claiming an area beyond the compromise. Accordingly, he had no right to sue and the plaint was liable to be rejected.

8. Whether what plots with what area was received by the revisionists, if seen from the compromise and the list of properties, would indicate that the properties as received by the revisionists, do no mention plot numbers. Out of three plots i.e. Plot No.2852/1, 285/2 and 2853/2 mentioned in Schedule-A which as per the revisionist went to the respondent, but how much area went to the plaintiff and whether by inference the remaining went to the defendant is a question of fact and can always be treated as part of the defence of the defendant, but prima-facie, as per the principles applicable in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it cannot be said that no cause of action has been disclosed.

9. The suit is primarily for injunction which necessarily entails a different sort of inquiry which is primarily based on possession. Whether what was the outcome of the remaining area deducted from the plots which were given to the plaintiff is also a subject matter of evidence. It is because of the contentious question involved which can only be ascertained after leading the evidence, the trial Court has refused to exercise jurisdiction and rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the trial Court does not appear to have committed any jurisdictional error, which may persuade this Court to entertain the revision. The impugned order does not suffer with any jurisdictional error and it is affirmed leaving it open for the parties to get their disputes decided based on evidence, in accordance with law.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. December 5, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Ms. Saima Khan, learned counsel for the revisionists. None appear for the respondent, despite the name of several counsel has been shown as counsel for the respondent, hence, the Court has proceeded to hear the revision in absence of the respondent.

2. The instant civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 CPC assailing the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda in Regular Suit No.230/2017, whereby the application of the revisionists under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the respondent, who is the plaintiff of Regular Suit No.230/2017 instituted a suit for injunction. In the said suit, he had pleaded that he had received exclusive right in respect of the property in question, on the basis of a family settlement arrived at between the parties, which was an outcome of a compromise which was verified in R.S. No.78/1992 before the Civil Judge, Gonda. The said compromise was also accompanied by a list of properties and in terms whereof the properties vested in the hands of the respondent were clearly shown in the list of the properties in Schedule-A whereas the properties forming part of Schedule-B and C was received by the revisionists No.1 and 2.

4. It is urged that in the plaint though the plaintiff-respondent claimed 2 CLRE No. 105 of 2019 rights on the basis of the said compromise but the manner in which he has described the property in the plaint included the property which was given to the revisionists in the said compromise and this was clearly a case of non-disclosure of a subsisting cause of action coupled with the fact that if the plaint of the plaintiff-respondent is read, it would indicate that the cause of action as pleaded has not been clearly mentioned nor the plaintiff has the right to sue and this aspect has been ignored by the trial Court, hence, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has incorrectly been rejected on the premise that the ground raised required adjudication and it being a mixed question of law and fact and this could only be decided at a later stage.

5. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it will be worthwhile to notice that the trial Court by means of its order dated 12.09.2019 rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC primarily on the ground that the question raised by the revisionists was a mixed question of law and facts which can only be decided after framing issues and permitting parties to lead evidence.

6. Assessing the aforesaid reasons of the trial Court in context with the averments made in the plaint, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.2, wherein Para-2 and 17, the plaintiff has mentioned the properties which he received in terms of the settlement which was the subject matter of compromise arrived at in a suit bearing No.78/1992, from a perusal of the averments made by the revisionists in their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.3, it would indicate that the thrust of the entire contention is that three plots numbers which were given to the plaintiff-respondent and it was described by the specific area as mentioned in the said compromise, which is at running Page-26 to 29 of the paper-book.

7. In this background, it is urged that out of the total area of the three plots which allegedly were given to the plaintiff-respondent, only some part of the area was mentioned in the compromise, hence, only that portion could vest with the plaintiff-respondent. It was not as if the entire plots had been given to the plaintiff rather the remaining area vested with the 3 CLRE No. 105 of 2019 revisionists, who are real brothers. It is thus urged that this very fact has not been appropriately considered and it was a case where on the face of the record, the plaintiff though basing his right on the compromise, yet he was claiming an area beyond the compromise. Accordingly, he had no right to sue and the plaint was liable to be rejected.

8. Whether what plots with what area was received by the revisionists, if seen from the compromise and the list of properties, would indicate that the properties as received by the revisionists, do no mention plot numbers. Out of three plots i.e. Plot No.2852/1, 285/2 and 2853/2 mentioned in Schedule-A which as per the revisionist went to the respondent, but how much area went to the plaintiff and whether by inference the remaining went to the defendant is a question of fact and can always be treated as part of the defence of the defendant, but prima-facie, as per the principles applicable in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it cannot be said that no cause of action has been disclosed.

9. The suit is primarily for injunction which necessarily entails a different sort of inquiry which is primarily based on possession. Whether what was the outcome of the remaining area deducted from the plots which were given to the plaintiff is also a subject matter of evidence. It is because of the contentious question involved which can only be ascertained after leading the evidence, the trial Court has refused to exercise jurisdiction and rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the trial Court does not appear to have committed any jurisdictional error, which may persuade this Court to entertain the revision. The impugned order does not suffer with any jurisdictional error and it is affirmed leaving it open for the parties to get their disputes decided based on evidence, in accordance with law.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. December 5, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench