Advocates Appeared:
Q.M. Haque, Adv., Rakesh Srivastava, Adv., Krishna Singh, Adv.

Key Points: - (!) Section 331 restricts cognizance by civil courts to matters listed in Schedule II and related relief. - (!) Explanation: relief obtainable in a revenue court is relevant to jurisdiction under Section 331. - (!) Subsection (3) and (4): appeals and second appeals lie within Schedule II pathways; generally restricts civil court jurisdiction. - (!) Plaintiff-mutated records show respondents as recorded tenure holders, implying removal to Revenue Court per Sri Ram’s/Kamla cases. - (!) Shri Ram case cited for guidance on when civil court may or may not have jurisdiction. - (!) Courts held that cancellation of sale deed in presence of fraud/impersonation may require Revenue Court if title is not in cloud for a recorded tenure holder. - (!) Order VII Rule 10 CPC allows returning plaint for presentation in proper court; Rule 11 allows rejection if barred by law. - (!) - (!) Rule 11(d) empowerment to reject where suit appears barred by law; rejection vs. return distinction explained. - (!) - (!) Appeal limited to CPC grounds; Supreme Court guidance on jurisdiction and bar. - (!) Conclusion: lower courts rightly held suit barred; appellant’s submissions not persuasive.

What is the effect of Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act on the jurisdiction of civil courts in suits related to land, and whether the suit is barred under this provision?

What are the circumstances under which a suit for cancellation of sale deed can be barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, and when should a plaintiff be directed to approach the Revenue Court or be allowed to proceed in civil court?

What is the proper procedure when a plaint is barred by statute—whether to reject under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or to return under Rule 10 CPC, and how does this apply to the present case?