IMPORTANT POINT
A recorded tenure holder, having prima facie title in his favour, cannot be directed to approach Revenue Court for seeking relief of injunction.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.07.2022 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge, Haridwar in Original Suit No. 177 of 2017 and also the judgment dated 15.02.2022 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Revision No. 48 of 2022.

2. By the impugned order, learned trial court held that the suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent before a Civil Court is not barred by Section 331 of Uttar Pradesh Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Z.A. & L.R. Act”). The view taken by trial court was affirmed by revisional Court.

3. The facts, on which there is no dispute, are that both plaintiff and defendants are recorded as Bhumidhar in respect of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No. 3 M situate in village Peetpur, Pargana Roorkee, District Haridwar, which they purchased from Lakhwinder Singh and Balwinder Singh, by means of separate sale deeds. Petitioners filed a suit for partition of the joint holding before Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Haridwar under Section 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act, which is pending. Respondent filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Haridwar restraining the petitioners from interfering with her peaceful possession over her land purchased through registered sale deed dated 14.12.2001.

4. In the injunction suit filed by the respondent, petitioners filed written statement contending that, in view of provision contained in Section 331 of Z.A. & L.R. Act, the suit is not maintainable before a Civil Court. Issue no.4 was framed on the question of maintainability of the suit, however, the said issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein) and against the petitioners. Learned trial Court relied upon the judgment rendered by Full Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Awalamb and others Vs. Jata Shankar and others, reported in 1968 SCC Online All 178: AIR 1969 All 526 (FB). Petitioners challenged the order passed by trial Court in revision filed under Section 115 C.P.C., which was dismissed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Haridwar vide judgment dated 15.10.2022. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have challenged the order passed by trial Court and also by the Revisional Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the learned Courts below have fallen in error by deciding issue no. 4 against the defendants, when admittedly plaintiff is recorded as co-owner with the defendants in respect of the land in question and the co-owner is not entitled to seek injunction against his co-owners, when partition suit is pending adjudication before the competent Revenue Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 331 of Z.A. & L.R. Act is reproduced below for ready reference:—

“331. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule 11 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof or of a suit, application, or proceedings bases on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could he obtained by means of any such suit or application:

Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule 11 in so far as they relate to suits, applications or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof.

Explanation.—If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the, revenue Court would have granted.

(I-A) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (1), an objection that a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule