JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Rama Kant Dixit for the petitioners and Sri Nitin Srivastava for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Sub Divisional Officer dated 22.8.2015 and Additional Commissioner dated 22.9.2015 by which plaint of the petitioners under Section 229 B of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 has been rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. and the revision has been dismissed. 3. There were two issues framed i.e. first issue was framed that exemption of notice under Section 80 CPC and Section 106 of UP Panchayat Raj Act 1947 in the suit and other issue was that the suit is barred under Section 34 of UP Land Revenue Act. The court below has rejected the plaint for non -compliance of Section 80 CPC and Section 106 of UP Panchayat Raj Act 1947 and suit is barred under Section 34 of UP Land Revenue Act. 3. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 4. Section 34 (5) of UP Land Revenue Act 1901 provides that in case report relating to succession or transfer of possession has not been given under Section 34 of UP Land Revenue Act then no revenue court shall entertain the suit. Thus the bar contained under Section 34 (5) of UP Land Revenue Act is fully applicable. 5. Admittedly the petitioner has not filled any application under Section 34 of UP Land Revenue Act for mutation of their names after death of their father. Thus the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. 6. The counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Krishan Kumar Vs. Smt. Ruchi2008(26) LCD 1267(DB) in which it has been held that the plaint under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC and this Court found that in the suit under Section 9 the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC is not applicable. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners has no application in this case. 7. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.