Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Virendra Acharya
For the Respondent: Mr. K.R. Saharan

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The suit for partition of land recorded as agricultural can be entertained by a Civil Court if there is substantial evidence that the actual use of the land has changed to residential, regardless of the recorded status (!) (!) .

2. The actual nature of the land, such as its use for residential purposes, is a critical factor, and the mere recording of the land as agricultural in revenue records does not bar the Civil Court from exercising jurisdiction once the use has shifted (!) (!) .

3. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether a suit discloses a cause of action should be based on the entire plaint, considering all averments and documents, rather than technicalities alone (!) (!) .

4. The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is to be exercised only if the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, is frivolous, or is vexatious, and not merely based on technicalities such as the agricultural status of the land (!) (!) .

5. The Court highlighted that the actual use and the admission of the parties regarding the change in land use are significant and should influence the jurisdictional assessment (!) (!) .

6. Technicalities, such as the revenue record still listing the land as agricultural, should not prevent the Civil Court from considering the suit when there is clear evidence of a change in land use and the suit's cause of action (!) (!) .

7. The Court directed that the impugned order rejecting the plaint be set aside and the case restored to its original file for an expedited trial, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over procedural technicalities (!) .

8. The Court clarified that issues such as non-joinder of necessary parties or other procedural objections should be considered during the trial and do not warrant dismissing the suit at the initial stage (!) (!) .

9. The judgment underscores the principle that the substance of the case and the facts as admitted or established by parties take precedence over formal record entries when determining jurisdiction and maintainability (!) (!) .

10. Overall, the decision reinforces that courts should prioritize the actual facts and justice over strict adherence to procedural formalities, especially when the change in land use is admitted by the parties involved.