Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8618 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1188 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Pal And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Ohers Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Singh,Dinesh Pratap Singh,Ved Prakash Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 in proceedings initiated under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code, 2006'). 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a suit preferred by the private respondent under Section 116 of the Code, 2006, which was contested by the present petitioners yet the proceedings culminated in a preliminary decree which was further taking forward and a final decree was also passed, however, the entire proceedings are bad in the eyes of law since no issues were framed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission has relied upon a decision of this Court Kamlakant versus Board of Revenue & Others, 2023 (1) ALJ 791 to submit that the proceedings could not have been taken forward without framing of the issues and substantial injustice has been caused. 6. Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection regarding the maintainability and since the proceedings have been initiated under Section 116 of the Code, 2006 any order passed in exercise of such jurisdiction is both appealable and in certain cases, even a revision can be filed if it falls within the provisions of Section 207 and or 2010 of the Code, 2006. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing at some length, could not dispute the fact that the petitioners have statutory remedy available in terms of the Code, 2006. 8. As far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Kamlakant (supra) is concerned, the same does not have the applicability inasmuch as in the said case the proceedings were before this Court after exhausting all statutory remedies. However, in the instant case, the petitioners have come up against the order passed by the Court of first instance and hence the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the decision of Kamlakant (supra). 9. In view of the availability of the alternate remedy this Court is not inclined to obtain the petition. Leaving it open for the petitioners to take a recourse as may be available to them. It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the plea of the petitioners on merits and it is only on the ground of alternate remedy that the petition has been dismissed. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench