LexMAHESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LR(S) versus BRIJESH KUMAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1076 : 2025 INSC 1005 Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through LR(s) v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10256 of 2025) 19 August 2025 [Rajesh Bindal* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in directing the return of plaint to the appellant for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – s.143 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII, Rule 10 – Return of Plaint – A tenancy agreement was entered into between the appellant-landlord and predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3-tenants – Land was taken for the purpose of setting up of petrol pump – Predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 failed to pay rent regularly – A suit for eviction was filed by the appellant – In the aforesaid suit, an application was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 contending that the civil court lacked jurisdiction – It was claimed that land in question is agricultural – Application was rejected and suit was decreed – The First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and held that the land in question was not declared non-agricultural in terms of s.143 of the UPZALR Act – The High Court opined that there being no declaration u/s.143 of the UPZALR Act for the land in question to be non-agricultural, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred – Correctness: Held: There is no quarrel on the proposition of law that appeal is continuance of proceedings and any developments which may take place during pendency of the appeal or suit, going to the root of the case, can always be taken notice of to avoid multiplicity of litigation – It remained an undisputed fact that finally vide order dated * Author [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1077 Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through LR(s) v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors. 14.03.1986, the land in question was declared non-agricultural – In the case in hand, from the very beginning, vide registered tenancy agreement, the land was taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos.1 to 3 for non-agricultural purposes – This fact also cannot be denied that on the date when the First Appellate Court passed the judgment on 27.07.1992, which was upheld by the High Court on 15.02.2024, the land in question had already been declared as non-agricultural u/s.143 of the UPZALR Act – After return of plaint in terms of judgment of the High Court dated 15.02.2024, the Revenue Court will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the lis, as the land has been declared non-agricultural during pendency of the litigation – The Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit – The impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside – As the merits of the controversy were not dealt with by the First Appellate Court or the High Court, the case is remitted back to the First Appellate Court to be considered and decided on merits. [Paras 17, 18] List of Acts Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Plaint; Return of plaint; Jurisdiction; Competent jurisdiction; Order VII, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Non-agricultural land; Tenancy; Section 143 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; Revenue Court; Civil Court. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10256 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in SA No. 1623 of 1992 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv., Ajit Sharma, Kanchan Kumar, Akshat Sharma, Amrit Pradhan, Lareb Habib Ansari, Anant Ram Mishra. 1078 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Advs. for the Respondents: S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mangal Prasad, Prateek Yadav, Anurag Singh, Gaurav Lomes, Prithvi Yadav, Ms. Radha Rajput, Ankur Yadav, Mrs. Priya Puri, Sachin Dubey, Ms. Ritim Mangla, Ms. Saloni Dahiya. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The appellant-landlord has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment of the High Court1 in Second Appeal No.1623 of 19922. Vide aforesaid judgment, the appeal preferred by the appellant was partially accepted while setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court3. However, the High Court passed an order under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC4 directing return of plai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.