JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 14.8.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hapur in Original Suit No. 29/2013, Smt. Puspa Rani and Anr. v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi and others, by which preliminary issue no.-3 relating to bar of suit under Order VII, Rule-11 CPC was decided in negative. In original suit it was pleaded that plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 6 are real brothers and sisters, and are sons of Mahavir Prasad Tyagi, who had expired on 22.2.2007. They and their father were members of Joint Hindu Family. Mahavir Prasad had inherited disputed agricultural property and became its bhumidhar. After the death of Mahavir Prasad, plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 6 became the co-owners of 1/7 share each of disputed agricultural plots. After amendment in Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, the Mahavir Prasad had no right to execute sale-deed of whole of the disputed agricultural property, but he had sold this property by registered sale-deed dated 31.1.2006 to defendant no.-7. Said sale-deed was executed without consent of the plaintiff, without getting the disputed land partitioned and without giving any consideration to plaintiff; so said sale-deed is illegal and void. On these grounds the plaintiff had filed suit for cancellation of aforesaid sale-deed executed by her father Mahavir Prasad in favour of defendant no.-7, and for permanent injunction restraining defendant no.-7 to interfere in her joint possession of disputed property. 2. After filing of written-statement, then trial court had framed several issues. Issue no.-2 was as to whether court has jurisdiction to decide the suit, issue no.-3 was as to whether suit is barred by provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. Issue no.-7 was as to whether suit is time barred. Issue no.-3 was relating to bar of Order VII, Rule 11, was taken as preliminary issue and was decided by trial court through its impugned order dated 14.8.2013, in negative, against which present revision has been filed. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists was that civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit as it is barred by provisions of Section-331 of UPZA & LR Act, because disputed agricultural property had been mutated in revenue records in name of purchaser defendant no.-7. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists was that civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit as it is barred by provisions of Section-331 of UPZA & LR Act, because disputed agricultural property had been mutated in revenue records in name of purchaser defendant no.-7. He further contended that dispute belongs to the rights and title of disputed agricultural property and such matter can be decided only by the revenue court. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide such issue. Even provisions of Hindu Succession Act will not be applicable in this matter and such matter will be dealt by special law of UPZA & LR Act. But these points were not considered by lower court, so learned Civil Judge has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly. He further contended that basis on which original suit was filed for cancellation of sale-deed was that plaintiff is co-sharer and co-tenure holder of disputed agricultural property. This is main dispute between the parties that can be decided by revenue court and not by civil court. Legal provisions bar the main relief sought in the plaint, but impugned order was passed without considering these provisions is erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Therefore, revision should be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that for deciding issue relating to Order VII, Rule-11 CPC only plaint averments have to be seen and considered, and per se pleadings in plaint does not attract bar of any legal provision. Since defendants' argument can be accepted on the basis of evidences only, therefore, plaint cannot be rejected under Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC. He further contended that by impugned order neither any case nor suit was finally disposed off, nor existence of impugned order would cause irreparable injury or injustice to defendant-revisionists, because during trial he will have opportunity to prove his case. Therefore under provisions of Section 115 (3) CPC, present revision is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of record reveals that at the time of disposal of issue no.-3 relating to Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC, trial court had also given finding to the effect that this inference cannot be drawn that suit is time barred. This was an unwarranted finding of trial court because separate issue no.-7 relating to suit being time barred was framed by trial court. This was an unwarranted finding of trial court because separate issue no.-7 relating to suit being time barred was framed by trial court. But at the time of disposal of issue no.-3 such finding was given. This has effect of deciding a right of deciding a right of defendant without formally being afforded opportunity of hearing on point of issue no.-7. This appears to be an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. 6. At the time of disposal of issue no.-3, trial court had given specific finding about the point that only civil court has jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to cancellation of sale-deed relating to agricultural property. The matter of jurisdiction of civil court is based on main relief of declaration or recognition of 1/7th share of plaintiff in disputed agricultural property. Although this relief was not specifically prayed but it is inherent in relief of permanent injunction prayed for disputed property. The relief of cancellation of sale-deed is secondary or ancillary relief based of said main relief. 7. Mere superficial reading of a few rulings without considering the real point of jurisdiction and the doctrine of pith and substance of the matter has resulted in such finding of lower court. The finding regarding jurisdiction of court concerning the issue no.-2 relating to jurisdiction of the court was given at the time of disposal of issue no.-3. Such finding was given by trial court which had also effect of deciding right of hearing of the defendant-revisionists on issue no.-2. Thus, indirectly learned Civil Judge had given finding on issue no.-2 without affording opportunity of hearing to parties. Considering the nature of dispute relating to agricultural property and implied declaration of 1/7th share of plaintiff in disputed agricultural property, such finding of trial court may be erroneous, because it was not considered as to how jurisdiction of revenue court of declaration of rights of agricultural property can be ousted by any provision of Hindu Succession Act. 8. A perusal of impugned order reveals that although this contains dozens of rulings, but perhaps these rulings were not properly studied by learned Civil Judge, who had simply mentioned them and passed impugned order without understanding or discussing real law laid down in them. Such order was also erroneous exercise of jurisdiction when it had effect of disposing other issues for which hearing was not made, but finding was given by learned Civil Judge. Such order was also erroneous exercise of jurisdiction when it had effect of disposing other issues for which hearing was not made, but finding was given by learned Civil Judge. Thus the trial court had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In these circumstances, this is not a case where provisions of Section 115(3) CPC [as amended by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003] are attracted as contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. By impugned order, several rights were decided by the lower court without properly considering them and affording opportunity to defendant-respondent. Although, impugned order runs in several pages but in fact it is a superficial order, in which proper consideration of facts and law was not done. Thus, impugned order is erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, which attracts revisional jurisdiction of this Court for interference. Since preliminary issues no. 2 and 3 may have common points so it would be appropriate to decide those issues, if possible, together as preliminary issues. 9. Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the impugned order 14.8.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hapur in original suit No. 29/2013, Smt. Puspa Rani & Anr. v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi & others, is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded to trial court with direction to afford fresh opportunity of hearing to parties on preliminary issues no. 2 and 3 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to lower court immediately for ensuring compliance.