Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1724 (ALL)

Uma Soni v. State of U. P.

2024-07-23

JASPREET SINGH

body2024
JUDGMENT : JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief: (i) Issue a writ of order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the proceeding of impugned case bearing No. 5423 of 2024 Computerized Case No. T202408150505423 (Ramrej Singh Vs. Jitendra Kumar Singh and others) under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before respondent no. 2 in the interest of justice. 3. The primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before the respondent no. 2, two separate suits under section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 have been instituted relating to the same plot number. It is urged that the law does not permit filing of more than one suit in respect of one plot wherein the parties are one and the same. He further submits that even otherwise in terms of section 10 CPC subsequently instituted suit should have been stayed and in this view of the matter, he submits that the proceedings of the subsequently instituted suit under section 116 of the U P Revenue Code be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the plaint of the first suit which has been brought on record as annexure no. 3. The said suit has been instituted by Ram Manohar Singh, son of Vijai Bahadur Singh in respect of plot no. 51, measuring 0.235 hectares, situate in gram Belkhara Pargana Bahraich Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich. He submits that this suit came to be instituted on 03.04.2024 wherein the present petitioner is the defendant no. 4. 5. It has also been pointed out that the subsequent suit was instituted on 05.07.2024 by Ramrej Singh, son of Gajadar Singh and this was also in respect of the same plot No. 51 and claiming equal share in the said plot with equal area. It is thus urged that subsequently instituted suit was bad and is liable to be quashed. 6. It is thus urged that subsequently instituted suit was bad and is liable to be quashed. 6. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and a pin pointed query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he has moved any application before the court concerned who is seized of the matter, to which he states that he has merely put in appearance, neither any application nor his response on merits had been filed as he does not know that out of the two cases which one he should contest. 7. Be that as it may, first and foremost from the provisions 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, it would reveal that there is no bar on the institution of more than one suit nor there is any prohibition so as to make the institution of more than the suit non-maintainable. 8. In so far as the applicability of section 10 CPC is concerned, the same is also not applicable; inasmuch as it only talks about stay on the trial and not on the institution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has himself stated that he has yet not put in his defence nor raised any such objections before the court concerned. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the submissions as well as the petition filed by the petitioner for the relief as claimed is per se misconceived. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 10. Mere dismissal of this petition shall not be a bar for the petitioner to contest the proceedings before the court concerned on merits and he shall be at liberty of moving any appropriate application to ventilate his grievance as it may so deem fit which needless to say shall be considered by the court on its own merits.