HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 1974 of 2026 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; Sri Rakesh Pathak for the respondent nos. 3 to 10 and Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta for the respondent no. 11. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 23.03.2026, by which the Revision filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 10, challenging the order dated 06.01.2026, allowing the substitution application has been entertained and the operation of the aforesaid order has been stayed. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 06.01.2026 had been passed allowing the substitution application for the purpose of continuing the proceedings pending before the Deputy District Magistrate, Dumariyaganj, District Siddharthnagar. The said order did not determine any right of the parties, as such, the present revision was not maintainable. He has further contended that though the orders, substituting the petitioner in the said proceedings, have been stayed, but the proceedings pending before the Deputy District Magistrate was not stayed, as such, during pendency of the revision, if any order deciding the mutation proceeding is passed by the Deputy District Magistrate, it will adversely affect the right of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Gayatri Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Birendra Kumar, Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohd Sonu, Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Pankaj Kumar Rai, Rakesh Pathak, Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Atul Kumar Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 10 Others .....Respondent(s) Devi Vs. Shanti Devi and 2 others in Matters Under Article 227 No. 5860 of 2021, decided on 25.08.2025. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 10 contended that the order under challenge is only an interim order and the revision has still to be decided on merits. It is further contended that 28.05.2026 is the next date fixed in the aforesaid revision. As the petitioner has already appeared, the revision itself can be decided on merits. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. By the order dated 06.01.2026, challenged before the respondent no. 2, in Revision No. REV/591/2026, the substitution application filed by the petitioner on the basis of will executed by Sitaram, whose application for substitution as the husband of deceased applicant Sursati Devi was already pending in the said proceeding, has been allowed. As held by this Court in the case of Gayatri Devi (supra), "by substitution, the substituted heir steps into the shoes of original plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, and cannot claim any right other than and better than the original plaintiff or defendant." 7. In the original case filed under Section 35(2) of the Revenue Code, the right of Sursati Devi to inherit the property of Buchchun is yet to be decided. Merely by substitution of the name of her husband or the legatee of her husband could not create any right in their favour. 8. As the judgment of this Court in Gayatri Devi (supra) relied upon by the petitioner was against the final orders passed in revision, on the said basis interim order under challenge, cannot be set aside at this stage. As the party to the revision pending before the respondent no. 2 have already appeared, he can move an appropriate application for vacation of the stay order and for deciding the revision itself on merits before the next date fixed. No interference is warranted in the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 23.03.2026, at this stage. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for vacation of the order WRIB No. 1974 of 2026 2 dated 23.03.2026 before the respondent no. 2, which shall be considered and decided, on the next date fixed. It is made clear that the respondent no. 2 shall make all endeavours to decide the revision finally, as the parties are ready for final disposal, on the next date fixed. May 5, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu WRIB No. 1974 of 2026 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad