Allahabad High Court
Fagu vs Pawan Kumar Gangwar, District ... on 7 May, 2026
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:105544
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2842 of 2026
Fagu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Pawan Kumar Gangwar, District Magistrate And 7 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Anand Kumar Pandey, Kamlesh Kumar Bharti
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. The applicant, before this Court, had approached the writ Court through Matters under Article 227 No. 6302 of 2018 challenging the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2015 whereby Issue No. 5 which was decided against petitioner was confirmed by appellate court. The writ Court had stayed the order impugned therein and following order was passed on 30.08.2018:-
"Heard Sri A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Plaintiff-petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity of the order impugned dated 5.12.2014 passed by 4th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mirzapur in Original Suit No. 614 of 2009 (Fagu Vs. Punwasi) and the order dated 28.7.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Mirzapur in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2015 (Fagu Vs. Punwasi).
Precise case has been set up by the plaintiff-petitioner that so far as the revenue court is concerned that has no power for cancellation of a document, which is alleged to be voidable, is maintainable in civil court and as such the same is not barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It is contended that the issue no. 5 which has been answered against the plaintiff/petitioner as barred by provision of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, is unsustainable and perverse finding has been recorded. As it had been pleaded through plaint the ground on which cancellation of sale deed was sought that the sale deed was got executed by coercion and by playing fraud upon the recorded tenure-holder. It is also contended that the question of jurisdiction depends upon the allegations in the plaint and not the merits or the result of the suit (vide Bismillah versus Janeshwar Prasad: (1990) 1 SCC 207, paragraph 9). Therefore, in a suit instituted before a civil court for cancellation of an instrument, in respect to an agricultural land, if a plea with respect to the bar of section 331 of the UP ZA & LR Act is taken, the court must first determine as to whether from the plaint averments the instrument, as alleged, is void or voidable. If the plaint averments go to show that the instrument is voidable at the instance of the plaintiff(s), then the suit would be maintainable in a civil court, but if it is alleged to be void then the Court may have to undertake a complex exercise so as to assess whether in a given set of facts a declaration of right or status of a tenure holder is necessarily needed or not. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in FAFO No. 1461 of 2014 (Ganga Prasad and Another Vs. Ram Das alias Pappu and 7 Ors.) dated 14.5.2014.
The matter requires consideration by this Court.
Issue notice to the defendants-respondents returnable at an early date. Steps may be taken within a week.
All the respondents are accorded four weeks time to file response. One week, thereafter, for rejoinder. List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the orders impugned shall remain stayed."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite parties are interfering in his possession.
3. From perusal of the interim order granted by writ Court, it is clear that the order deciding Issue No. 5 has been stayed by writ Court. There is no order for staying the dispossession or interfering in the possession.
4. In view of said fact, no case for contempt is made out.
5. The contempt application is misconceived and stands dismissed.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) May 7, 2026 (V. S. SINGH)