Allahabad High Court
Sanatullah Khan vs Ahsan Jameel And 4 Others on 28 October, 2025
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188403
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SECOND APPEAL No. - 407 of 2025
Sanatullah Khan
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Ahsan Jameel And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Sanjai Kumar Pandey, Shakil Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Mohd. Afzal, Shivangi Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, Jitendra Singh
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Heard Shri Sanjai Kumar Pandey and Shri Shakil Ahmad, counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh for the defendant-respondent.
2. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2025 and 14.02.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagina, District Bijnor in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2023 and the judgment dated 07.04.2023 and decree dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagina, District Bijnor, dismissing the suit and allowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant-respondent.
3. Facts in brief are that the plaintiff-appellant had filed Original Suit No. 542 of 2016 claiming the relief of cancellation of sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 dated 26.03.2008. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed on 13.10.2022 on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by provisions of law. The suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 07.04.2023, against which, a civil appeal under Section 96 CPC was preferred by the plaintiff which has been dismissed on 31.01.2025. Hence, the present second appeal.
4. This appeal was admitted on 11.07.2025 on the following substantial question of law and following order was passed:
"1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Pandey, holding the brief of Mr. Shakil Ahmad, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for defendant-respondent no.2. Mr. Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh/Mr. Jitendra Singh have filed caveat for defendant-respondent no.1.
2. Admit on the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether the findings recorded by courts below in non-compliance of statutory provision of Civil Procedure Code are sustainable in law?"
3. Defendants-Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are reported to be proforma respondents, as such, notices in respect to them are dispensed with.
4. Defendants-Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 are represented by Mr. Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh/Mr. Jitendra Singh and Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocates respectively.
5. Both the parties are ready for final disposal of the instant second appeal as suit filed by appellant has been dismissed as barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code.
6. Put up this matter as fresh on 21.7.2025 for final disposal."
5. Today, when the case was taken up, counsel for the defendant-respondent nos. 1 and 2 fairly conceded the fact that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was not maintainable as from the reading of the same, the suit filed by the plaintiff could not have been dismissed.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties and the statement so made by the respondent's counsel, this Court finds that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was not liable to be dismissed on the basis of the allegation made in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. As from the perusal of the application, it transpires that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred by any provision of law as there is no narration of the fact as to how the suit was barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
7. In view of the said fact, the judgment and decree of the both the courts below dated 31.01.2025, 14.02.2025, 07.04.2023 and 21.04.2023 are hereby set aside. The appeal stands partly allowed. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to adjudicate the Suit No. 542 of 2016 afresh.
8. Every endeavour shall be made by the court below to expedite the proceeding of the suit and conclude the same within a period of one year without granting any adjournment to either of the parties.
9. This second appeal stands partly allowed leaving it open to the court below to frame additional issues if required by the parties.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
October 28, 2025
A. V. Singh
