The pendency of proceedings under one provision does not bar actions under another; purely legal questions can be heard despite available alternative remedies.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. Nil of 2025

1. Amendment application has been filed to correct the description of respondent no.4.

2. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has no objection.

3. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the array of parties during the course of the day.

4. Accordingly, the same is allowed.

Order on petition

1. Sri Ajay Shankar has filed an affidavit of service in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 28 November, 2025; in Court today; the same is taken on record.

2. As per the para 4 of the affidavit Dasti Summons have been served upon the respondent no.4.

3. Heard Sri Ajay Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

4. By the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage, since the question involved is only legal in nature.

Facts

1. The petitioner is said to have inherited the property in pursuance of the Will dated 20.1.2015 which was executed in his favour by the erstwhile owner late Makhan Singh, with respect to his 1/4th share in Khata No.00112, Gata No.129 area (1.08 hec.) i.e. 0.271 hec. of Village Ankhey, Puranpur, Pilibhit.

2. According to the petitioner his cause of action arose on account of a Will dated 12.1.2023 which was setup by respondent no.4. He has attracted the attention of the Court to para 12 of his plaint filed in Case No.5788 of 2024 (Sant Harvindar Singh vs. Amandeep Singh and others) filed under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, (hereinafter referred as Code, 2006). For the convenience of ready reference para 2 and 4 are quoted below:-

3. It transpires that the respondent no.4 filed his objection and also subsequently he filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. dated 16^th May, 2025 inter alia taking a ground that the proceedings under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 is pending and in view of the same Suit under Section 144 of the Code, 2006 is not maintainable. For convenience the relevant paragraph 3 of the objection dated 16.5.2025 is quoted below.

4. The said application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. was allowed by the impugned order dated 20.9.2025, hence the present petition.

Issues:-

(I) whether the impugned order by way of which an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been allowed, is amenable to writ jurisdiction, in view of Section 207 of the Code, 2006, which provides for an appeal;

(II) whether a suit under Section 144 of the Code, 2006 can be said to be barred by law on account of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Code, 2006.

Arguments-Issue No. I

5. Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the order passed on application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is appealable under Section 207 of the Code, 2006; and accordingly the petitioner may be relegated to avail the alternative remedy, which according to him is an efficacious remedy and in view of the facts stated in the present writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

6. Per contra Sri Ajay Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the authority concerned has exceeded its jurisdiction and has considered the pendency of proceedings under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 to be a bar which is in the teeth of the settled position of law and being a purely question of law; the present