IMPORTANT POINT
A party must disclose all relevant prior proceedings when filing a suit; failure to do so results in the suit being deemed not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Mr. V.K. Ojha, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5.

2. In the present case, father of the contesting respondent nos.4 and 5 has filed a suit under Section 38(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (in short ‘the Code’) for correction of errors in the records of rights i.e. Khatauni. The said suit was contested by the present petitioner and the same was allowed by a reasoned order dated 28.5.2016 and entries made in the name of present petitioner was expunged and name of the contesting respondents were directed to be entered.

3. It is not in much dispute that there was no challenge to said order at the instant of the petitioner. Accordingly, it has attained finality and claim of the present petitioner on basis of a sale-deed in regard to the land in dispute was rejected so far as correction of record was concerned.

4. The petitioner concealing details of above referred proceedings as well as its out come has subsequently filed a suit under Section 144 of the Code on 3.11.2016 and claimed land in dispute on basis of a possession on oral baynama as well as on plea of adverse possession.

5. It appears that a purported application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by the defendants/contesting respondents for rejection of the plaint on a ground that petitioner/plaintiff has not come up before the Court with clean hands and concealed a material fact i.e. outcome of the earlier proceedings that his claim on basis of alleged sale-deed was rejected in a proceedings arising out of Section 38(1) of the Code, which has attained finality and has bearing on suit also.

6. The learned Trial Court by an order dated 27.5.2017 rejected the suit as not maintainable. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

7. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. However, the same was rejected by an order dated 6.6.2022. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

8. Mr. V.K. Ojha appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court has not considered that the issue of maintainability could be considered only after framing of preliminary issue. However, without framing of any issue the suit was rejected, and as such the relevant provisions of C.P.C. i.e. Order XIV Rule 1 (1 to 6) were not complied with. Learned counsel also submitted that since nature of the proceedings under Section 38(1) of the Code does not create any right, therefore, its disclosure was not mandatory.

9. Per contra, Mr. Rahul Sahai appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents has submitted that the petitioner has not denied that details of earlier proceedings concluded under Section 38(1) of the Revenue Code, 2006 were not disclosed in the plaint and since its finding may have relevance, therefore, both the Courts have rightly held that the suit was not maintainable.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

11. Before adverting to the rival submissions, few paragraphs of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kum. Geetha D/o Late Krishna & Ors. Vs. Nanjundaswamy & Ors. (2023) INSC 964 and Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and others, (2023) INSC 1043 being relevant on issue of consideration of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. are respectively reproduced hereinafter:

Kum. Geetha (supra)

“23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration. Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr. (2004) 3 SCC 137.”

Eldeco Housing (supra)

“26. However, the fact remains that all the aforesaid documents, referred to by the respondent in suppor