Behat Bar Association vs District Judge, Saharanpur and Another

"(i) Issue order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to transfer back all the transfer cases from Gram Nyayalaya, Behat to Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saharanpur and Gram Nyayalaya may be allowed to accept the civil suit for cancellation of deeds."

¶14

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the entire action has been taken by the respondents in view of the dictum of this Court in Siya Dulari v. Awadh Naresh, (2024) 164 RD 612. He also makes a statement at Bar that till date the dictum in Siya Dulari has not been upset by the higher courts. As such it is submitted that no interference is required in the instant matter.

¶15

Heard rival submissions, perused the record and respectfully considered the judgment cited at Bar. For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgment in Siya Dulari (Supra) is reproduced as under:-

¶16

".........40. Be that as it may, given the fact that it has been held that a civil court would have jurisdiction in the matter, the aspect that whether it is the civil court or the Gram Nyayalaya would have the jurisdiction in the present case, is now being considered.

¶17

WPIL No. 3930 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

41. Right to purchase of property, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is referable to a right flowing out of an agreement to sell. Subject to the prescribed pecuniary jurisdiction, suits for specific performance of such instruments would be covered by the jurisdiction so conferred on the Gram Nyayalaya. A suit for cancellation of a sale-deed, on the other hand is not referable to a right to purchase of property, inasmuch as, in such a case, the plaintiff may or may not seek an ancillary relief of specific performance. It is accordingly held that the Gram Nyayalaya had no jurisdiction in respect of the suit in question.

¶20

42. It is important to mention here that an appeal against any judgment or order of the Gram Nyayalaya lies before the District Court subject to the pecuniary limits specified. As reflected in the aforementioned order dated 1.10.2022 passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, the valuation of the suit was made at Rs. 390/- which was affirmed to be correct by the court in its order dated 24.10.2019. Therefore, no appeal would lie against the aforesaid decree, which anyway has been held to be without jurisdiction.

¶21

43. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that for purpose of ascertaining the nature of cases that would be covered by Part I of the Second Schedule of the Act, 2008, it is required to be seen whether the special procedure prescribed in the Act, 2008 would be appropriate for effective adjudication, or, whether the detailed procedure prescribed in the CPC would be appropriate, does not appear to be correct given the scheme and the objects of the Act, 2008. Presently, under the Rules of 2009, only those matters of valuation up to Rs.25,000/= can be entertained by the Gram Nyayalaya. Since maintainability of appeals before the District Court against the judgments and orders of the Gram Nyayalaya in civil cases has been restricted on the basis of valuation as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008, such restricted matters would, generally, deserve to be given a quietus. However, where there is a failure of justice, no one is precluded from availing judicial remedies as indicated in sub-section (6) of Section 34. With regard to matters whose valuation would entail maintainability of appeals on facts, the relevant provisions in CPC would come to the aid of such appellants as the procedure for appellate courts is not prescribed in the Act, 2008. It is therefore, always open for the Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, to amend the Second Schedule to the Act, 2008 to include such other nature of cases as they deem fit.

¶22

44. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Manikpur, District Chitrakoot, passed in New Original Suit No. 41 / 2020 (Smt. Siya Dulari v. Awadh Naresh) is set aside.

¶23

WPIL No. 3930 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

The record of the suit with the Gram Nyayalaya is directed to be sent to the District Court within 15 days from today, if not already sent, for its adjudication afresh by the appropriate court.

¶26

45. This petition is, accordingly, allowed."

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that entire action has been taken by the respondents in view of dictum in Siya Dulari (Supra), which still holds the field, and as such we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.

¶28

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶30

January 19, 2026 SP/

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Behat Bar Association v. District Judge, Saharanpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Behat Bar Association v. District Judge, Saharanpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhash and 6 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

M/S Luxmi Enterprises vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Saraswati Infosoft Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Luxmi Enterprises vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shri Thakur Ji Mahraj Virajman Mandir and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jagat Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others