Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6763 Court No. - 8 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 512 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Raj Kumari Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Lambhua, Sultanpur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Dubey,Ashish Kumar Shukla,Rajesh Yadav,Ram Pratap Yadav,Shiv Kumar Yadav,Shiv Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Under challenge is the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the S.D.M Tehsil Lambhua District Sultanpur in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a caveat on 17.01.2025 and on the very same date, the Court had passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo. Submission is that once the caveat has been filed it was not open for the court concerned to pass the interim order without considering the caveat and without hearing the parties who had filed the said caveat. In such circumstances, it is urged that the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 directing the parties to maintain status quo is patently erroneous. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the submission of the petitioner cannot be appreciated for the following reasons :- (i) that the petitioner has filed a copy of the plaint which is on record as Annexure no.4 which indicates that Sri Jai Prakash was the plaintiff and as many as 12 persons have been impleaded as defendant in the suit, however, this Court finds that none of the aforesaid defendants in the suit has been impleaded as a party in the instant petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition suffers from mis joinder rather non joinder of necessary parties. (ii) the petitioner has also brought on record a copy of the caveat as Annexure-5 dated 17.01.2025, however, there is no averment in the petition nor it could not be seen from the annexures annexed with Annexure-5 to indicate that when the petitioner had sent the postal cover to the affected parties. (iii) Even otherwise, the petitioner has a remedy of either approaching the court concerned or filing a revision/appeal as may be available to him in terms of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. (iv) It has also been pointed out by learned Standing counsel that the caveat has been filed before the different court whereas the order impugned which is said to have been passed by the S.D.M in proceedings under Section 116 is of different court. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find it a fit case where the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take recourse as may be available to him in law. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench