HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD S.C.C. REVISION No. - 135 of 2025 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for both the respondents. 2. The landlord-respondents had instituted a S.C.C. Suit No.03 of 2024 before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Banda seeking eviction decree against the revisionists. Revisionists claim that they had instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents which was registered as Original Suit No.28 of 2023 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda. The description of the property, for which the injunction was sought, has been given in para 1 of the plaint. 3. According to revisionists' counsel, an application 56-C was moved questioning the title of the respondents. According to him, the suit was barred under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The Court below had wrongly dismissed the application holding that the property, mentioned in both the suits filed by the revisionists as well as respondents, is one and the same and there appears to be no title dispute. 4. Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents has invited the attention of this Court to para 1 of the suit filed by the revisionists. According to him, the description of the property in both the suits is one and the same. He further placed reliance upon the finding recorded by the Court below as to the admission of fact by the revisionists in para 3 of the plaint filed by them in the year 2023, in which, revisionists claim to be the tenants of Smt. Jaggo Bai who had let out the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pratikdhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rakesh Kumar Tarachandra Sahu And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) Akhilesh Kuamr Shivhare And Another .....Opposite Party(s) shop to the father of revisionists and after the death of father Chunni Lal, he had continued over the same. He has further submitted that the Court on relying upon the entry in the register of Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda as well as suit filed by the revisionists had dismissed the application. 5. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It is an admitted case to both the parties that late Jaggo Bai was the owner of the property in dispute. The landlord respondents claim that they have purchased the property in the year 2022 from the legal heirs of Jaggo Bai. It was after the purchase that the suit for eviction was filed. The denial of title by the revisionists has been refused by the Court below on the ground that in the injunction suit filed by the revisionists, they have themselves admitted to be in possession as tenants of Jaggo Bai. 7. Once, the claim is there that the revisionists are the tenants of Jaggo Bai and are continuing in possession, the suit instituted at the behest of landlord-respondents would be maintainable before Judge, Small Causes Court, Banda. 8. No case for interference is made out. 9. Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. October 14, 2025 SK Goswami SCCR No. 135 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad