JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief: "I. Issue/Pass an order setting aside Impugned Judgment/Order and Formal Order dated 16.08.2023 and 21.08.2023 passed in civil Revision No.3 of 2021, "Kushma Devi Vs Darshan Singh (Dead) and Others" by Addl. District and Session Judge, Court No.1 Farrukhabad, arising out of order dated 15.01.2021 and Formal Order dated 25.01.2021 passed by Learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Kayamganj; Farrukhabad in O.S. No.225 of 2018, "Darshan Singh (Dead) and Others Vs Jabar Singh and others" II. Issue/Pass an order allowing Application 32C-2 dated 04.01.2019, of the petitioner field under Order-VII, Rule-11(d) of C.P.C. and to dismiss the above mentioned suit with cost, as is barred by Sec.206 (2) A and Serial No.15 & 16 of second Schedule of U.P. Revenue Code 2006." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent instituted suit for prohibitory injunction being Suit No. 225 of 2018 (Darshan Singh and others Vs. Javar Singh) restraining the defendant-petitioners from interfering with their possession over the land in dispute. The defendant-petitioners filed an application in the suit for rejecting plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C., contending therein that the suit is barred by Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Schedule 2 entry 15 and 16 of the Schedule. The aforesaid application filed by the defendant-petitioners has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 25.01.2021. The revision No. 3 of 2021 filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 25.01.2021 has also been dismissed by order dated 16.08.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 1, Farrukhabad. Hence the present petition. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the revenue records the name of plaintiff and defendants are recorded as co- tenure holders as Bhumidhars and all the gata number being minjumla, which has not been partitioned and therefore, the jurisdiction is with the revenue court and the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 5. Before examining the contention, it will be useful to look into the statutory provisions. 6. 5. Before examining the contention, it will be useful to look into the statutory provisions. 6. Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides for jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue Courts and is quoted as under:- “Jurisdiction of civil Courts 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, the Board, any Revenue Court or revenue Officer is, by or under this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), and save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Code- (a) no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the matters specified in the Second Schedule; and (b) no Court other than the revenue Court or the revenue officer specified in column 3 of the Third Schedule shall entertain any suit, application or proceeding specified in column 2 thereof. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, an objection that a Court or officer mentioned in sub-section (2)(b) had or had no jurisdiction with respect to any suit, application or proceeding, shall not be entertained by any appellate, revisional or executing Court, unless the objection was taken before the Court or officer of the first instance, at he earliest opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.” 7. Schedule 2 of the U.P Revenue Code, 2006 provides for 16 matters which are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Schedule 2 of the U.P Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted as under: SECOND SCHEDULE [See Section 206(2)(a)] *Substituted by Section 187 of U.P. Act No.4 of 2016, SI.No. Matters excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court 1. Any question regarding the demarcation of boundaries or fixing of boundary marks. 2. Any claim to question a decision determining abadi made by the Collector. 3. Any claim to have any entry made in any revenue records or to have any such entry omitted, amended or substituted. 4. Any question regarding the assessment, remission or suspension of land revenue or rent. 5. 2. Any claim to question a decision determining abadi made by the Collector. 3. Any claim to have any entry made in any revenue records or to have any such entry omitted, amended or substituted. 4. Any question regarding the assessment, remission or suspension of land revenue or rent. 5. Any claim connected with or arising out of the collection by the State Government or the enforcement by such Government of any process for the recovery of land revenue or any sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue under this Code or any other law for the time being in force. 6. Any claim against the vesting of any property in the State Government, Gram Panchayat or other local authority under this Code. 7. Any question relating to the levy or imposition of a fine, cost, expense, charge, penalty or compensation under this Code. 8. Any question regarding reinstatement of a Bhumidhar or asami wrongfully ejected or dispossessed from any land. 9. Any claim to compel the performance of any duty imposed by this Code on any revenue officer appointed under this Code. 10. Any question, relating to division, creation, amalgamation, abolition or readjustment of revenue areas and Lekhpal’s circles under Chapter II. *11. Any question relating to the allotment of land referred to in Section 64 or Section 125 or cancellation of such allotment. 12. Any claim to question a direction issued by the Collector under section 71. 13. Any claim to question the delivery of possession over any land and part thereof referred to in Section 124, or the eviction of any person under Section 134 or Section 201.] 14. Any claim to question the validity of any order made by the State Government under Chapter XI. 15. Any claim regarding possession over any land. 16. Any claim to establish the rights of a co-tenure holder in respect of any land. *Substituted by Section 187 of U.P. Act No.4 of 2016, 8. Third schedule of the U.P Revenue Code, 2006 provides for description of the suit application or proceeding, Court or officer of original jurisdiction, first appeal and second appeal provided under the Act. 16. Any claim to establish the rights of a co-tenure holder in respect of any land. *Substituted by Section 187 of U.P. Act No.4 of 2016, 8. Third schedule of the U.P Revenue Code, 2006 provides for description of the suit application or proceeding, Court or officer of original jurisdiction, first appeal and second appeal provided under the Act. Third schedule of the Code is quoted as under:- Third Schedule Section Description of suit application or proceedings Court or Officer of original jurisdiction First Appeal Second Appeal 1 2 3 4 5 24 Boundary and boundary marks Sub- Divisional Officer Commissioner ---- 35 Mutation cases Tahsildar Sub-Divisional Officer 1[***] 54, 56, 57 Disputes relating to trees Collector Commissioner ---- 67 Eviction of illegal occupier of Gram Panchayat 2[Assistant Collector] 3[Collector] --- 82(2)(c) Suit for ejectment by a Bhumidhar against the person in possession of any land on the basis of a contract or lease Sub- Divisional Officer Commissioner Board 85(1) Suit for ejectment by Gram Panchayat against a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights Do Do Do 85(2) Suit for ejectment by a land-holder against an asami Do Do Do 96(2) Suit for partition by a disabled co-sharer Do Do Do 116 Suit for division of a holding Do Do Do 131(1) Suit for ejectment of an asami Do Do Do 131(4) Suit for recovery of arrears or rent against an asami 4[Sub- Divisional Officer] Collector Nil 133 Suit for injunction, compensation etc. Do Do Do 134 Suit for ejectment against a person occupying land without title or for damages or for both Sub- Divisional Officer Commissioner Board 137(1) Suit for possession, compensation or injunction Do Do Do 139(1) Application for fixation of rent Tahsildar Sub-Divisional Officer Nil 141(1) Application for commutation of rent Sub- Divisional Officer Collector Nil 144 Suit for declaration by Bhumidhar or asami Do Commissioner Board 145 Suit for declaration by Gram Panchayat Do Do Do 151(1) Suit by a Government lessee for ejectment or for damages or both Do Do Do ----------------------- 1 “Commissioner” omitted by Section 188(a) of U.P. Act No. 4 of 2016 2 Substituted by Section 188(b) of U.P. Act No. 4 of 2016 3 Substituted by Section 188(b) of U.P. Act No. 4 of 2016 4. Substituted by Section 20 of the U.P. Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2019(Act No.7 of 2019) (w.ef. 10-3-2019) 9. Substituted by Section 20 of the U.P. Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2019(Act No.7 of 2019) (w.ef. 10-3-2019) 9. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the civil court to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is barred either specifically or impliedly. A litigant having a grievance of civil nature has, independently of any statue, has a right to institute a suit in a civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. 10. In Secretary of State Vs. Mask and Company A.I.R. 1940 PC 105, Privy Council has observed that it is settled law that exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. 11. The Supreme Court in case of Abdul Waheed Khan Vs. Bhawani and others reported in 1966 (SC) 1718 has held in paragraph no. 9 as under: “Under s. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a civil court can entertain a suit of a civil nature except a suit of which its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It is settled principle that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a civil court to establish his contention. It is also equally well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly construed.” In case of Dhulabhai etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. reported in 1969 SC(78) in paragraph no. 32 has summarized the position as under:- “32. Neither of the two cases of Firm of Illuri Subayya(1) or Kamla Mills(2) can be said to run counter to the series of cases earlier noticed. The result of this inquiry into the diverse views expressed in this Court may be stated as follows :- (1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the Civil Courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in Civil Courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. (3)………. (4)………. (5)……….. (6)……….. (7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.” 12. The Supreme Court in case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ramalinga Samigal Madam reported in A.I.R. 1986 (SC) 794, in paragraph no. 14 has held as under:- “14. Thirdly, having regard to the principle stated by this Court while enunciating the first proposition in Dhulabhai’s case (supra) it is clear that even where the statute has given finality to the orders of the special tribunal the civil Court’s jurisdiction can be regarded as having been excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil Court would normally do in a suit. In other words, even where finality is accorded to the orders passed by the special tribunal one will have to see whether such special tribunal has powers to grant reliefs which Civil Court would normally grant in a suit and if the answer is in the negative it would be difficult to imply or infer exclusion of civil Court’s jurisdiction.” 13. Again in case of Nagri Pracharini Sabha and another Vs. Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi and others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 36 in paragraph no. Again in case of Nagri Pracharini Sabha and another Vs. Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi and others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 36 in paragraph no. 2 and 3 of the judgment has held as under: “2. A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has, independently of any statue, a right to institute a suit in the civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The position is well settled that exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must be either express or implied. 3. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Mukhoty before us on the ratio of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in K.S. Venkataraman & Company v. State of Madras, where reference has been made to the Privy Council case in Raleigh Investment Company Limited v. The Governor General in Council. It has been laid down that the Civil Court's jurisdiction would be presumed unless the contrary is indicated. Mr. Mukhoty has also relied upon two other decisions being Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Others, and Dhulabhai v. The State of M.P. The legal position thus seems to be clear and it is not necessary to quote further authorities.” 14. Thus from the case laws as discussed above, it is clear that normally there will be a presumption as to the jurisdiction of the civil court unless the same is expressly or impliedly barred. 15. Since in the present case, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and as it is settled that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, only the plaint's averments has to be seen. Except for the plaint's averments, the averments made in the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 or in the written statement can be looked into therefore, it will be useful to see in short the plaint's averments. 16. The suit was instituted with the allegation that Bhukhand Khasra No. 352 M/0.142 hectare and Bhukhand Khasra No. 344 M/0.049 hectare which are part of Gata No. 77 situated at village Katra Rehmat Khan, the original owner in possession of the aforesaid khasra numbers was Dinanath son of Baldev Prasad, Mewaram s/o Mukti, Jabar Singh, Gajraj singh, Havaldar Singh and Jahan Singh sons of Masal Singh. In the aforesaid parcel of land, Dinanath had half share which he received in inheritance from his father Baldev. After the death of Dinanath his half share devolved upon his sons plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 having 1/4 share each. The half share of Mukti, after his death devolved upon Mewa Ram and Masal Singh having 1/4 share each. After the death of Mewaram his 1/4 share devolved upon his son Amar Singh through his widow Jaldevi and other sons, namely, Rakesh Chandra, Maheshchandra, Sarveshchandra, Pushpendra Singh and Nilesh Singh. The 1/4 share of Masal Singh devolved upon defendant nos. 1 and 2, Havaldar Singh and Jahan Singh, who have sold their entire share to one Shareef Khan s/o Munku Khan and thereafter, nothing remained in the share of defendant nos. 1 and 2. Later on Sharref Khan sold different portion to different persons over which they have raised constructions and in the present suit the plaintiffs have no dispute with those purchasers of Shareef Khan. Over the land in dispute, name of Smt. Hridavati widow of Sher Singh was recorded as Bhumidhar and she has executed a sale deed dated 03.07.1987 of 6 Decimal 24 aire which was registered on 03.08.1987 in favour of plaintiff no. 2. 17. The aforesaid Hridawati executed another sale deed dated 11.6.1999 of her entire 1/3 share in Khasra No. 344 M area 0.049 hectare in favour of plaintiff no. 3, which has been described in the plaint as letters p]N]t]> and where construction raised by the plaintiff no. 3 exist. It has also been stated that towards north of p]N]t]> which belongs to the plaintiff there are constructions of the defendant. The defendants in the suit wants to illegally dispossess the plaintiffs from land p]N]t]> and therefore, the suit was filed for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. 18. From the perusal of provisions of Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it is clear that in the first place, Section 206 of the Code makes a general declaration that no civil court shall entertain any suit, application or proceeding to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, any revenue officer or a revenue court is empowered to determine, decide or dispose of under this Code. 19. 19. Then comes Section 206 (2) of the Code which has been divided in two parts. i. Clause (a) of the Section expressly excludes the jurisdiction of civil court on all matters specified in the Second Schedule. ii. Clause (b) of 206 (2) further lays down that no court other than revenue court or revenue officer specified in the Third Schedule shall entertain any suit, application or proceedings specified in the said schedule. 20. Section 206 (3) of the Code seeks to prohibit all appellate, revisional or executing courts from entertaining the plea of jurisdiction, unless such plea was taken before the trial court, at the earliest opportunity, and unless there was a consequent failure of justice. 21. Section 206 (2) (a) refers to the Second Schedule and provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction over any of the 16 matters specified in the said schedule. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Clause 15 and 16 of the Second Schedule and has contended that the suit is barred by Section 206 of the Code. Clause 15 relates to any claim regarding possession over any land and Clause 16 states that any claim to establish right of co-tenure holder in respect of any land. 23. From the pleadings as noted above neither the Clause 15 nor Clause 16 applicable in the present case. As from the plaint’s allegation, it is clear that it has been contended by the plaintiff-respondents that the defendants in the suit has no right to the property as they have already sold their share much before filing the present suit. So, there is no question of any claim to establish the right of a co-tenure holder as stated in paragraph 16 of the Second Schedule. The Clause-15 will also not apply for the reason, the petitioner is claiming an injunction, restraining the defendant-petitioners in the suit from interfering with their possession. 24. So far as the proceedings covered under the Third Schedule do not include the suit for injunction except for there is a mention of Section 133 and 137(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, in the Third Schedule, it has been mentioned that the suit for injunction, compensation etc. (Section 133) and suit for possession, compensation and injunction (Section 137). 25. Section 133 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 relates to suit for injunction, compensation etc. (Section 133) and suit for possession, compensation and injunction (Section 137). 25. Section 133 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 relates to suit for injunction, compensation etc. Section 133 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted as under: “133. Suit for injunction, compensation etc.-The [Gram Panchayat] or the land-holder may, in lieu of suing for ejectment of an asami under Section 131, file a suit in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer. (a) for injunction restraining him from putting the land to any unauthorised use or causing any waste or damage to it; (b) for compensation for such use, waste or damage; or (c) for repair of the waste or damage caused to the land.” 26. From the perusal of Section 133 it is clear that Section 133 contemplates a suit by the Gram Panchayat or by the land-holder for injunction restraining the asami from putting a land to any unauthorized use or causing any waste or damage to it instead of suing for ejectment of asami under Section 131 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 27. Section 133 of the Code will not apply to the suit simpliciter for injunction as in the present case. 28. Section 137 provides for remedies for wrongful ejectment. Section 137 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 is quoted as under:- “137. Remedies for wrongful ejectment: (1) An asami ejected or apprehending ejectment from or prevented from obtaining possession of any land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of any law for the time being in force, may sue the person so ejecting him, trying to eject him or keeping him out of possession - (i) for possession of the [land; or] (ii) for compensation for wrongful dispossession; or (2) When a decree is passed for compensation for wrongful dispossession but not possession the compensation awarded shall be for the whole period during which the asami was entitled to remain in possession.” 29. Section 137 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides only for compensation and possession in case of asami is ejected or apprehends ejectment and the provisions of 137 will clearly not be applicable in the present case. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in case of Kamla Prasad and others versus Sri Krishna Kant Pathak and others reported in 2007(4) SCC 213 . 30. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in case of Kamla Prasad and others versus Sri Krishna Kant Pathak and others reported in 2007(4) SCC 213 . In case of Kamla Prasad, it has been held by Apex Court that civil court will have no jurisdiction to decide the issue of validity of sale-deeds in respect of an agricultural land, particularly in view of the case put forward by the plaintiff that he was not the sole owner of the property and defendant nos. 10 to 12, who were proforma defendants had also right, title and interest therein. He had also stated in the plaint that though, in the revenue record, only his name had appeared but the defendant nos. 10 to 12 have also right in the property. Supreme Court held that, both the courts below were right in holding that such question can be decided by a revenue court in a suit instituted under Section 229 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Supreme Court further held that, courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that legality or otherwise of insertion of names of purchaser in record of rights and deletion of name of the plaintiff from such record can only be decided by revenue court since the name of purchasers had already been entered into. Only revenue court can record a finding whether such action was in accordance with law or not and it cannot be decided by the civil court. 31. This court in case of Rajeshwar Gupta and another Vs. Smt. Gauri Devi and others reported in 2017 (134) RD 34 has held as under:- “14. It is settled law that a suit for injunction can be maintained also on the ground of possessory title. A person in possession over some property can defend his possession and claim an injunction for protecting such possession, from the entire world, except the true owner.” 32. From the discussion made above that it is clear that for filing a suit simpliciter for injunction there is no prohibition in any of the clauses of section 206 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit for injunction is neither expressly barred nor by implication . 33. From the discussion made above that it is clear that for filing a suit simpliciter for injunction there is no prohibition in any of the clauses of section 206 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit for injunction is neither expressly barred nor by implication . 33. In my opinion, the courts below were right in holding that suit will not be barred by provisions of Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code and have committed no illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 34. The writ petition lacks in merit and is therefore, dismissed.