Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3769
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
M/S L.R. Print Solutions – Petitioner
Versus
M/S Suro Exim Llp And Others –Respondents
First Appeal No. - 1000 of 2023
Decided On : 29-08-2025
For the Appellant : Abhishek Kumar, Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay
For the Respondent: Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Ishir Sripat, Kaushalendra Nath Singh
A tenant does not possess the legal standing to challenge the validity of a registered sale deed executed by the property owner, and a suit filed with such an objective, lacking a legitimate cause of action, is liable to be rejected at the threshold.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Essential conditions - The court must examine the plaint averments to determine if the suit is barred by law or fails to disclose a cause of action - If the plaint allegations reveal that the plaintiff (a tenant) lacks legal standing to challenge a registered sale deed, the plaint is liable to be rejected. (Paras 11, 14, 16)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - Power of the appellate court to review trial court orders regarding the rejection of a plaint - An order rejecting a plaint under the specified provision is to be upheld if the suit is clearly not maintainable based on the facts pleaded in the initial petition. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
A suit for the cancellation of a sale deed and for permanent injunction was instituted by the plaintiff, who claimed to be a tenant of the subject property. The defendants filed an application under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the suit was not maintainable. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The plaintiff filed the present appeal against this order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's own pleadings established their status as a tenant and that related tenancy disputes were already pending before other adjudicatory forums. Consequently, the claim to challenge the property transfer by the owner was legally untenable based on the provided pleadings.
Issues: The main issues were whether a suit for the cancellation of a sale deed and permanent injunction is maintainable at the instance of a tenant, and whether the trial court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to reject the plaint at the threshold.
Ratio Decidendi: A tenant lacks the requisite legal interest to challenge the validity of a registered sale deed executed by a property owner. When a plaint clearly fails to demonstrate a valid cause of action or is otherwise barred by established legal principles concerning the limits of a tenant's standing, it must be rejected under the relevant procedural rules to prevent meritless litigation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The case involves an appeal filed by the plaintiff, M/S L.R. Print Solutions, against a judgment that rejected their plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) (!) (!) .
-
The original suit was for cancellation of a sale deed dated 05.03.2021 and for permanent injunction, with the plaintiff asserting that the sale deed was not valid under sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act (!) (!) .
-
The trial court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by the defendants, which led to the rejection of the plaint. The court's reasoning was that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and that the plaintiff's allegations did not satisfy the legal requirements for such a suit (!) (!) .
-
The plaintiff contended that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint summarily and that the suit should be decided on its merits after proper framing of issues and evidence. The plaintiff argued that the plaint's allegations demonstrated a valid cause of action for cancellation and injunction (!) (!) .
-
The defendants argued that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff was a tenant and the dispute regarding ownership and sale deed had already been pending before a competent court, and that the plaintiff had concealed material facts regarding prior proceedings (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court reviewed the case and found that the trial court committed a manifest error in appreciating the pleadings, particularly that the plaintiff, as a tenant, could not challenge the sale deed on the grounds of ownership or adverse possession, and that the suit was barred or not maintainable under the law (!) (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court also noted that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and that the suit was barred due to the plaintiff's status and the pending proceedings regarding tenancy (!) (!) (!) .
-
Based on the analysis, the appellate court upheld the rejection of the plaint, affirming that the suit was not maintainable and that the application under Order VII Rule 11 was rightly allowed by the trial court (!) (!) (!) .
-
Consequently, the first appeal was dismissed, and the order of rejection of the plaint was upheld, emphasizing that the suit lacked legal standing and that the procedural rejection was justified (!) (!) (!) .
-
The judgment reaffirmed that suits challenging sale deeds or seeking injunctions cannot be maintained when the plaintiff's legal status, such as being a tenant, does not entitle them to such relief, especially when the matter is already pending before a proper judicial forum (!) (!) .
These points summarize the court's reasoning, the procedural history, and the ultimate decision regarding the maintainability of the suit and the correctness of the rejection under Order VII Rule 11.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and filing of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties argument regarding order vii rule 11 c.p.c. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court analysis of plaint allegations versus legal standards. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. determination of suit maintainability regarding tenancy status. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. final confirmation of judgment and dismissal of appeal. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar and Shri Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Brief of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale dead as well as permanent injunction before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar impleading three defendants, who are respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the present First Appeal. The aforementioned suit was registered as original suit No.342 of 2021. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have put in appearance in the aforementioned suit and filed an application under order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code), 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.'), the application was numbered as paper no.30-Ga. Against the application no.30-Ga filed by defendant-respondent nos.1 and 2, an objection was filed by plaintiff-appellant, which was numbered as paper no.39 Ka. The trial court heard the application no.30-Ga filed under Order-VII Rule-11 C.P.C.as well as objection paper no.39 ka filed by plaintiff and vide judgement and order dated 29.5.2023 allowed the application No. 30-Ga filed by defendant under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and rejected the plaintiff's objection filed by plaintiff- appellant. Hence, this first appeal under Section-96 of C.P.C. on behalf of plaintiff for following relief:-
" The relief sought by this Hon'ble Court is that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the judgment dated 29.05.2023 and decree dated …...2023 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Gautam Buddh Nagar in Civil Suit No. 342 of 2021 (M/S L.R. Print Solutions Vs. M/S SURO EXIM LLP and others)."
3. This Court admitted the first appeal on 10.04.2024 and summoned the record of the trial court. The defendants were already appearing before this Court through counsel.
4. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 10.04.2024 record of the trial court has been received to this court.
5. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that trial court has committed the manifest error of law in rejecting the plaint under Order-VII Rule-11 C.P.C. as the plaint of the suit does not fall under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.. He further submitted that trial court has not considered the objection filed by plaintiff-appellant to the application filed by defendant-respondents under Order-VII Rule 11 C.P.C. to the effect that sale deed dated 5.3.2021 has not satisfied the ingredients of section- 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. He submitted that trial court summarily decided the case on the basis of the application 30-Ga Under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. He submitted that suit for cancellation of the sale dead as well as for permanent injection is to be decided after framing issues giving parties to lead the evidence rather to reject the plaint on the basis of the application filed by defendant under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. He submitted that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. the plaint allegations are only to be seen and plaint allegation fully demonstrate that plaintiff suit for cancellation of sale dead and permanent injection cannot be dismissed on the basis of application file under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. He submitted that impugned judgement and order dated 29.5.2023 passed by trial court should be set aside and application 30-Ga filed by defendant under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. should be dismissed as well as plaintiff suit should be decided on merit after framing issues and affording opportunity to
