JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

1. Heard Shri Mata Achal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. N. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Kailash Singh Yadav, learned counsel for private respondents, Shri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed for the following relief:

“I. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Case No. 4197/2022 (Daroga versus Chhedi Lal and others) Under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

II. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of ad-interim Mandamus Commanding and directing the Respondents for maintaining status quo over the land in dispute.

III. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. IV. Award Cost of the Writ Petition to the Petitioner.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 4 filed a suit bearing Suit No. 4197 of 2022 (Daroga v. Chhedi Lal and others) for partition against the petitioner and respondent nos. 5 to 26 under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 2006”) in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi seeking a decree of division of holding. Present petitioner was arrayed as defendant no. 15 in the aforesaid suit who filed his objection/written statement in the aforesaid suit denying the allegations made in the plaint of suit for division of holdings.

4. The trial court i.e. Additional City Magistrate, 1^st Class, Varanasi by order dated 23.10.2024, passed a preliminary decree in the suit determining the shares of the parties to the suit and has directed the Tehsildar, Sadar to submit qurra (specific portion as per the shares determined), hence the present writ petition.

5. Shri Kailash Singh Yadav, learned counsel for private respondents, Shri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha as well as learned Standing Counsel have raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition, inter-alia, contending that the order impugned is appealable under Section 207 of the Code, 2006. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the respondents that since the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing statutory appeal, the writ petition may not be entertained by this Court.

6. Refuting the submission of learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that preliminary decree being an interim measure in continuation of the suit, will not be appealable in view of provisions of Sub-section (f) of Section 209 of the Code, 2006. Section 209 of the Code, 2006 prohibits filing of an appeal under Section 207 and 208 in the contingency mentioned in Section 209 of the the Code, 2006.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the bar created by Section 209 of the Code, 2006, first appeal as provided under Section 207 of the Code, 2006, will not lie and therefore, the petitioner has no statutory remedy against the preliminary decree and the present petition is maintainable.

8. Before considering the rival submissions as made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be appropriate for this Court to consider the relevant statutory provisions first. Chapter 13 of the Code, 2006 deals with proceedings and jurisdiction of the revenue courts. Section 206 of the Code, 2006 deals with jurisdiction of Civil Courts and Revenue Courts. Section 206 of the Code, 2006 is quoted as under:

“S. 206. Jurisdiction of civil court and revenue courts: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of this Code, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit, application or proceeding to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, t