These two writ petitions have been filed against identical orders, rejecting petitioner's applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), in two suit proceedings instituted by Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti a registered society (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff-society), against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-defendant) and certain other persons. These suit proceedings were instituted under section 229 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950.

2. The petitioner-defendant challenged these orders (rejecting his two similar applications), in two separate revisions. The revision applications also came to be dismissed. In these writ petitions, the petitioner-defendant has challenged both - the orders dated 24.10.2013 passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as also orders dated 12.12.2013 passed upon revision applications arising there from. For convenience, facts obtaining in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6512 of 2014 are being narrated, since the question involved in both writ petitions is the same.

3. Plaintiff-society - Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti, is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act,1860. It instituted Suit No. 01 of 2010 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Modi Nagar, seeking relief of declaration against the petitioner-defendant, stating therein, the plaintiff-society was a 'bhumidhar' in possession of the suit property.

4. Thus, plaintiff-society claimed, suit property had been purchased by it in the name of the petitioner-defendant through registered sale deeds that were got executed by the said plaintiff-society. It was further the plaint allegation - the petitioner was a 'pracharak' of the plaintiff-society and aforesaid sale deeds were executed in the name of the petitioner-defendant, in his capacity as 'pracharak' of the plaintiff-society. It is also the case of the plaintiff-society that an interim injunction was granted in its favour by the trial court that became subject matter of challenge that was carried to the Supreme Court and the interim injunction was maintained by that court as well.

5. In the above factual background petitioner-defendant filed an application dated 3.6.2013 in the aforesaid suit, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, on two counts.

6. First, it was submitted, according to the plaint allegation, suit property had been purchased by the plaintiff-society in the name of the petitioner-defendant. Therefore, the transaction was a 'benami transaction' within the meaning of that term under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as it stood at that time.

7. Therefore, it was claimed, the suit was barred under section 4 (1) of the Act. In this regard section 2(a) that defines 'benami transaction' and the provisions of section 4 as stood prior to its amendment made in 2016 read as under:-

"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(a) "benami transaction" means any transaction in which property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another person;

4. Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami.--

(1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.

(2) No defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply,--

(a) where the person in whose name the property is held is a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of