Civil courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate on claims regarding non-agricultural land, even under revenue codes.

1. ANALYSIS OF BAR OF SUIT INVOKING U.P. Revenue Code , 2006 VIS - A - VIS REJECTION OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC.
THE APPEAL

The instant appeal under S.96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') assails validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2024 and decree dated 20.08.2024 based thereupon, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddha Nagar has allowed an application 20 - ka filed by the defendant - respondent No.6 under Order VII R.11 CPC and rejected the plaint of Original Suit No.828 of 2024 (Nimmi Infratech Pvt. Limited v. Fundan and others). The order impugned amounts to a decree under S.2(2) CPC, hence this regular appeal.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX

The aforesaid suit was filed with the averments that Satya Homes Private Limited being a private limited company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, was subsequently nomenclatured as Nimmi Infratech Private Limited. Defendants No.1 to 4 were alleged to be owners of the property in dispute with an averment that their names were recorded in the revenue records and that they had entered into an agreement for sale dated 02.05.2014 with the plaintiff - Company and out of the total proposed sale consideration of Rs.15,21,37,274/-, a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- was paid by the Company; the agreement was registered in the office of Sub- Registrar concerned; possession of the property was delivered to the appellant as per the agreement itself; stamp duty amounting to Rs.76,12,100/- was paid on the entire sale consideration; a sale deed dated 14.12.2015 was executed by the executant Mehar Chand in favour of the plaintiff - Company in respect of part of land covered by gata No.795 and a sum of Rs.29,23,700/- was paid in relation to the agreement for sale which was adjusted towards sale consideration and remaining amount was paid to the defendants No.1 to 4. Further averments were made regarding another sale deed dated 20.06.2015 executed in respect of some part of gata No.793 and adjustment of money paid with reference to agreement for sale.

3. The cause of action giving rise to the suit was alleged on account of the fact that the defendants No.1 to 4, instead of executing sale deed in furtherance of the agreement for sale in respect of remaining part of the land, executed six sale deeds in favour of other defendants and though a suit being Original Suit No.1183 of 2023 (Satya Homes Private Limited v. Fundan and others) was previously filed in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddha Nagar claiming a decree of specific performance of the agreement and, in which, a temporary injunction order dated 10.10.2023 was passed, the sale deeds were executed in violation thereof. Terming the sale deeds as void and adversely affecting the rights of the plaintiff for multiple reasons, decree was claimed to the effect that sale deeds be declared as illegal, forged, fabricated and void documents and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff - Company and such endorsement be made in the records of the Sub-Registrar concerned. A further decree for injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the property based upon the void sale deeds was also claimed with a further relief of damages to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- per month.

4. The trial court, on 21.05.2024, passed an ex - parte ad - interim injunction order directing the parties to maintain status quo and issued notices to the defendants. The injunction order was extended from time to time and, later on, an application 20 - ka was filed by defendant No.6 under Order VII R.11 CPC with a prayer to reject the plaint. Pursuant t