Point of law: Where Section 80 (2) C.P.C. provides that even though if the leave is granted yet no interim relief will be granted without hearing the State-respondents and in the instant case, the leave had been refused. The plaintiff preferred the instant revision and the interim order dated 06.10.2020 was passed without notice to the State-respondents. It is also to be noticed that prior to the grant of leave, the suit itself is not before the Court hence in absence of suit, there was no occasion to pass any order much less an interim order.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri. Samarth Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Sri. Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Shantanu Sharma and Ms. Anantika Singh for respondent no. 4.

2. The instant Civil Revision has been preferred under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 15.07.2020 passed in Misc. Case No. 133 of 2020 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lakhimpur Kheri whereby the leave to institute the Suit as prayed by the revisionist under Section 80 (2) of the C.P.C. was refused.

3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the above civil revision are being noticed first.

4. The revisionist as plaintiff before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lakhimpur Kheri had filed an application under Section 80 (2) C.P.C. along with the copy of the proposed plaint seeking leave of the Court to institute the suit without serving the notice on the State-respondents as provided under Section 80 (1) C.P.C.

5. The averments as disclosed in the plaint are that the revisionist has been a lessee of the disputed land in question. The aforesaid land, the details of which were mentioned in paragraph 1 of the proposed plaint, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 6 with the memo of revision, the same vested with Sri. Rajagopal Mandir Trust situate in District Lakhimpur Kheri along with many other properties. Since there was a dispute in respect of the properties belonging to the aforesaid trust, hence, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2016 pending before this High Court at Lucknow, as an interim measure the Court had appointed the Chief Secretary, Department of Religious Affairs, State of U.P. as the Receiver. In furtherance thereof the SDM, Lakhimpur Kheri was appointed to look after the properties and was also entitled to receive the rent in respect of the properties which were leased out to various persons. In the aforesaid backdrop, 25.44 acres of the land belonging to the Trust was leased out to the revisionist for which he was paying Rs. 14,000/- per acre as lease rent. The aforesaid lease was on yearly basis commencing from the 1st of July till 30th of June of each year.

6. It was stated that the State-respondents had attempted to dispossess the revisionist some time in the year 2017 and a notice was sent by the revisionist in reply whereof the SDM had admitted the revisionist to be a lessee and also accepted the rent from him.

7. The cause of action for the instant suit was mentioned in Paragraph 9 of the proposed plaint wherein it was stated that the defendant no. 1 of the suit namely SDM, Lakhimpur Kheri on 02.07.2017 stated that now the plaintiff/revisionist would be given only 12.5 acres of land and the other part would be measured and separated which shall be leased out to some other person. The aforesaid act was not within the domain of the S.D.M. and since he was attempting to dispossess the plaintiff in the aforesaid circumstances, the suit for permanent injunction was sought to be filed.

8. The application under Section 80 (2) C.P.C. along with the proposed plaint was filed on 04.07.2020 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lakhimpur Kheri registered as Misc. Case No. 133 of 2020. Upon the said application, notice was issued to the State authorities who filed their objections on 14.07.2020, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 8.

9. Referring to the said objections, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in paragraph 5 it was pleaded that the plaintiff had not impleaded the District Magistrate nor the Chief Secretary, Religious Affairs, State of U.P. as a party. For the aforesaid non-joinder of parties, the application under Section 80 (2) was liable to be rejected. However, in paragraph 6 of their objection the State-respondents stated that the lease period of the plaintiff was uptil June, 2020 which had expired. The possession from the plaintiff has been taken and has be