HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6106 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Order on IA-NIL of 2025: 1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 2. This is an application for impleadment of two opposite parties who were there in the array of parties before learned trial court. 3. As all the parties before the learned trial court are proper parties to the petition, therefore the application is allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners may incorporate necessary corrections in the memo of petition forthwith. Order on memo of petition: 5. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of judgment and order dated 02.08.2023, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Barabanki in Civil Revision No.16 of 2022, whereby the revision filed by the opposite party no.1 against an order dated 16.03.2022, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.13, Barabanki in Regular Suit No.592 of 2001 was set aside. The order dated 16.03.2022 had decided a preliminary issue no.6 regarding Civil Court's jurisdiction in view of pendency of the matter in consolidation court. The trial court held that if the sale deed is void the civil court would not have jurisdiction but if it is voidable civil court would have jurisdiction. It was pleaded in para 4 of the plaint that the sale deed has been executed improperly and no further facts have been verified in this regard. In para 7-D it has been pleaded the mental condition of deceased executant of the deed was not good. Thus, the pleading makes out allegation of sale deed being voidable. The civil court decided issue no.6 in favour of plaintiffs holding that it had Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ved Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ramu And Another .....Petitioner(s) Guddu .....Respondent(s) jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 6. The opposite party no.1 filed Civil Revision No.16 of 2022 which has been allowed by means of impugned order. The Revisional Court held that the issue has been decided keeping in view the averments made in the plaint only whereas it ought to have been decided keeping in view the pleadings i.e. plaint and written statement filed by the parties and evidence available on record. 7. It is settled law that while deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. the averments made in the plaint only are required to be taken into consideration but when the issue is being decided after exchange of pleadings, the pleadings of all the parties are to be considered while deciding the issue. Further the court may take into consideration the evidence led in support of the pleadings. 8. There is no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 directing the trial court to decide the issue afresh after taking into consideration pleadings and evidence of all the parties. 9. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. October 28, 2025 Ram. A227 No. 6106 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench