Ashish Kumar Srivastava and another v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and others), whereby an application moved by the present r

Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava And Anr. Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Narayan Pandey,Niteesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Badri Prasad Singh,Nitin Padmesh Mishra Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard Shri Niteesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Badri Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6. The instant civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 CPC assailing the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Judge) Lucknow in Regular Suit No.1437 of 2023 (Ashish Kumar Srivastava and another v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and others), whereby an application moved by the present revisionists/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that a suit preferred by the respondents was barred by law. It is urged that in the plaint, it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the property in dispute was procured by the father of the plaintiffs and the father-in-law of the other plaintiffs, who was working in the Irrigation Department. The plaintiffs are in possession of the first floor since the year 1997 and on the ground floor in one room, the defendant No.3 is residing. It is stated that this is an incorrect fact inasmuch as the property in dispute was purchased by the revisionists and the Lucknow Development Authority had executed a sale-deed in their favour. It is also urged that once this was brought on record by the revisionists, the plaintiffs did not attempt to amend this plea nor it sought any declaration of their title, hence, their plaint was barred as a simplicitor suit for injunction was not maintainable as once there was a challenge to the right/title of the plaintiffs without seeking a remedy of declaration, the suit was bad. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and Another v. Ganga Bai Menariya (dead) through LRs and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 169. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that his case is fully covered by Paragraph-23 of the aforesaid report of the Apex Court and for the sake of convenience, the Paragraph 23 of the Tehsildar (supra) is reproduced as under:- "23. Further a suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable as the title of the property of the plaintiff/respondent was disputed by the appellants/defendants. In such a situation it was required for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the title of the property while praying for injunction. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs, (2008) 4 SCC 594." Shri Badri Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inasmuch as the scope of the proceedings or consideration on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is confined only to the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff in support thereof. There can be no manner of doubt that the slightest averment of the defendant which may be part of his defence cannot be taken into consideration. As far as the plaint is concerned, the averments as stated therein have to be taken to be correct and there is nothing which has been pointed out which can indicate that a bare perusal of the plaint would indicate that it is barred by any law or even against the proposition of the Apex Court as relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionists. Thus, the revision is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Apparently, the respondents filed a suit for injunction wherein they claimed that they are in possession and sought a relief that they may not be dispossessed or their possession may not be interfered with by the defendants/revisionists. The fact whether the property was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs or it was purchased by the defendants is a subject matter of trial. There is no averment made in the plaint by which it can be seen that the plaintiffs have taken a plea that the property vests with the defendants and yet would have maintained a suit for simplicitor injunction. The averment of the revisionists at best can be part of their defence which if raised before the trial Court can be considered by the Court after framing issues. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any averment made in the plaint which makes the plaint barred by law. Insofar as the observations of the Apex Court in Tehsildar (supra) is concerned, the same is on the merits of the matter after trial and it does not indicate that there is any provision where a plaint in itself on the bare averment can be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In this regard, this Court is fortified in its view in light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. Shri Bala & Co. : 2025 SCC Online SC 48, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner : (2024) 3 SCC 137, Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property : (1998) 7 SCC 184, Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharastra : (2003) 1 SCC 557; R.K.Roja v. U.S. Rayudu : (2016) 14 SCC 275; Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510 as well as judgment of this court in Mudit Verma v. Ram Kumar, 2018 SCC OnLine All 3411, . For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any error muchless any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial Court dated 17.10.2024. Accordingly, the revision is misconceived and is dismissed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava And Anr. Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Narayan Pandey,Niteesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Badri Prasad Singh,Nitin Padmesh Mishra Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard Shri Niteesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Badri Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6. The instant civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 CPC assailing the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Judge) Lucknow in Regular Suit No.1437 of 2023 (Ashish Kumar Srivastava and another v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and others), whereby an application moved by the present revisionists/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that a suit preferred by the respondents was barred by law. It is urged that in the plaint, it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the property in dispute was procured by the father of the plaintiffs and the father-in-law of the other plaintiffs, who was working in the Irrigation Department. The plaintiffs are in possession of the first floor since the year 1997 and on the ground floor in one room, the defendant No.3 is residing. It is stated that this is an incorrect fact inasmuch as the property in dispute was purchased by the revisionists and the Lucknow Development Authority had executed a sale-deed in their favour. It is also urged that once this was brought on record by the revisionists, the plaintiffs did not attempt to amend this plea nor it sought any declaration of their title, hence, their plaint was barred as a simplicitor suit for injunction was not maintainable as once there was a challenge to the right/title of the plaintiffs without seeking a remedy of declaration, the suit was bad. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and Another v. Ganga Bai Menariya (dead) through LRs and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 169. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that his case is fully covered by Paragraph-23 of the aforesaid report of the Apex Court and for the sake of convenience, the Paragraph 23 of the Tehsildar (supra) is reproduced as under:- "23. Further a suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable as the title of the property of the plaintiff/respondent was disputed by the appellants/defendants. In such a situation it was required for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the title of the property while praying for injunction. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs, (2008) 4 SCC 594." Shri Badri Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inasmuch as the scope of the proceedings or consideration on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is confined only to the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff in support thereof. There can be no manner of doubt that the slightest averment of the defendant which may be part of his defence cannot be taken into consideration. As far as the plaint is concerned, the averments as stated therein have to be taken to be correct and there is nothing which has been pointed out which can indicate that a bare perusal of the plaint would indicate that it is barred by any law or even against the proposition of the Apex Court as relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionists. Thus, the revision is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Apparently, the respondents filed a suit for injunction wherein they claimed that they are in possession and sought a relief that they may not be dispossessed or their possession may not be interfered with by the defendants/revisionists. The fact whether the property was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs or it was purchased by the defendants is a subject matter of trial. There is no averment made in the plaint by which it can be seen that the plaintiffs have taken a plea that the property vests with the defendants and yet would have maintained a suit for simplicitor injunction. The averment of the revisionists at best can be part of their defence which if raised before the trial Court can be considered by the Court after framing issues. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any averment made in the plaint which makes the plaint barred by law. Insofar as the observations of the Apex Court in Tehsildar (supra) is concerned, the same is on the merits of the matter after trial and it does not indicate that there is any provision where a plaint in itself on the bare averment can be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In this regard, this Court is fortified in its view in light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. Shri Bala & Co. : 2025 SCC Online SC 48, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner : (2024) 3 SCC 137, Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property : (1998) 7 SCC 184, Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharastra : (2003) 1 SCC 557; R.K.Roja v. U.S. Rayudu : (2016) 14 SCC 275; Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510 as well as judgment of this court in Mudit Verma v. Ram Kumar, 2018 SCC OnLine All 3411, . For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any error muchless any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial Court dated 17.10.2024. Accordingly, the revision is misconceived and is dismissed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench