Allahabad High Court
Yogesh Kumar Shukla And Another vs Manoj Kumar Shukla on 21 August, 2023
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168104
Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12335 of 2022
Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Shukla And Another
Respondent :- Manoj Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravikar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari,Kavindra Gill
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:
"I. Issue an order or direction and to set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the Revisional Court / Additional District Judge Court No. 1, Bijnor in Civil Revision No. 92/2021 u/s 115 C.P.C. and also set aside the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Bijnor in O.S. No. 17/2019 (Manoj Kumar Shukla Vs. Shukla and others) and to allow the application i.e. C-56 under Order-7 Rule-11 C.P.C. filed by the defendant-petitioners. (Annexure no. 8 and 10 to this petition)."
3. Under the challenge is the order passed by the civil court dated 21.10.2021 and the order passed by the revisional court dated 5.12.2022, whereby, respectively, an application filed by the defendant-petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed and, the revision filed against the order of dismissal of that application has been rejected.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the suit for declaration in respect of agricultural land was filed being Original Suit No. 17 of 2019 before the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bijnor. It is contended that a suit for declaration would be barred under the provisions of Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is stated that under the circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner dated 19.1.2021 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC bearing paper No. 56 (Ga) was incorrectly rejected. It is stated that the revisional court misdirected itself in rejecting the revision.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petition and stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is not a suit as contemplated under Section 144 of the Code 2006 but it is a suit for declaration declaring a gift deed to be void. It is stated that an additional relief of permanent injunction has been sought.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that the suit has been filed seeking primarily two reliefs. The first relief is for a declaratory decree for declaring a gift deed dated 19.8.2017 as void. The second relief is for a permanent injunction in respect of the property in dispute. It is admitted to the parties that the property in dispute is agricultural land and for purposes of the Code of 2006, it is covered by that Code.
7. A perusal of Section 144 of the Code 2006 reads as follows:
"(1) Any person claiming to be a bhumidhar or asami of any holding or part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person, may sue for a declaration of his rights in such holding or part.
(2) In every suit under sub-section (1) instituted by or on behalf of :-
(a) a bhumidhar, the State and the [Gram Panchayat] shall be necessary parties;
(b) an asami, the land-holder shall be a necessary party."
8. The declaratory suit as contemplated under Section 144, and the declaration as sought in the aforesaid Suit No. 17 of 2019 are two entirely different reliefs. The declaration as sought for in the suit can only be granted by a civil court, and there is no error or irregularity in the order impugned dated 21.10.2021 passed by the civil court and the order dated 5.12.2022 passed by the revisional court rejecting the application filed under Section Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the revision respectively.
9. No cause for interference is called for in this petition, and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2023
K.K.Tiwari
(Jayant Banerji, J.)
