Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16913 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2819 of 2025 Petitioner :- Basanti Devi Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner -Ii, Lko. Division, Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akashdeep Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard Sri Akashdeep Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel. By means of this petition, the petitioner has impeached the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the respondent No. 1/Additional Commissioner (Judicial)- II, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (in short "Revisional Authority") in Revision No. 282/2023, Computerized Case No. C202310000000282 (Suman Singh vs. Basanti Devi and others) instituted under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"). Vide order impugned dated 10.12.2024, the Revisional Authority interfered in the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by Tehsildar, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No. T201910430105969, under Section 24 of the Code of 2006 and remanded the matter back to the revenue court of first instance dealing with the mutation cases namely Tehsildar, Lakhimpur Kheri. It would be apt to indicate here that vide order dated 24.01.2023, the revenue court of first instance dealing with mutation cases rejected the application preferred by the revisionist(s), who are private opposite parties herein, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant petition has been preferred before this Court. In order to come to the conclusion as to whether the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 is liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 10.12.2024, which reads as under:- "5- ममनन उभयपकक कन ववददन अधधवकद कन तकर एवव पतदवलल पर उपलबध सदकयय एवव अवभलनखय तथद अवर नयदयदलय कन पशनगत आदनश कद समयकक अवलयकन व पररशललन वकयद। अवलयकन सन वववदत हम वक अवर नयदयदलय कन समक वनगरदनलकतदर ददरद आदनश 1 वनयम 10(2) व आदनश 6 वनयम 17 सल०पल०सल कन अनतगरत पदथरनद- पत पसततत वकयद गयद थद, धजसमम उसकन ददरद मतखय रप सन ददधखल ववकय पतय कन आधदर पर कन तदगण कय पककदर बनदयन जदनन एवव नदमदनतरण वदद मम सवशयधन हनतत कथन वकयद गयद थद, धजसन अवर नयदयदलय ददरद धदरद 34 सरसरल पवकयद पशनगत कदयरवदहल मम पयषणलय नहह हम, ववकय पतय पर गदटद सवखयद कद उलनख नहह हम, कय आधदर मदनतन हहए वनरसत कर वदयद गयद थद। जबवक अतर नयदयदलय कय चदवहए थद वक पदथरनद- पत कय सवलकदर करतन हहए वदद कद वनसतदरण समसत पहलतओ कय दवषगत करतन हहए पदररत वकयद जदनद चदवहए थद। परनतत उनकन ददरद ऐसद नहल वकयद गयद। जय नमसवगरक नयदय कन धसददनतय कन ववपरलत हम। पकय कय नमसवगरक नयदय कन धसददनतय कन कम मम सदकय व सतनवदई कद अवसर वदयद जदनद उवचत पतलत हयतद हम। अवर नयदयदलय ददरद उक पहलतओ कय दवषगत नहह वकयद गयद, धजसकन पररणदमसवरप अवर नयदयदलय कद पशनगत आदनश ससथर रखनन ययगय नहह हम। वनगरदनल मम बल पतलत हयतद हम। अतत वनगरदनल आववशक रप सन सवलकदर कक जदतल हम। अवर नयदयदलय कन पशनगत आदनश वदनदवक 24.01.2023 कय वनरसत वकयद जदतद हम। अवर नयदयदलय कय पतदवलल इस आशय कन सदथ पवतपनवषत कक जदतल हम वक उभयपकय कय पपणर सदकय व सतनवदई कद अवसर पददन करतन हहए ववधधक पदववधदनक कन कम मम नयदयसवगत आदनश पदररत करम। आदनश कक पवत कन सदथ अवर नयदयदलय कक पतदवलल वदपस भनजल जदयन। बदद आवशयक कदयरवदहल इस नयदयदलय कक पतदवलल ददधखल अवभलनखदगदर हय।" Upon due consideration of the facts of the case and also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Revisional Authority in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. It is for the following reasons:- (i) The order impugned dated 10.12.2024 is simplicitor order of remand and it is trite that the order of remand does not terminate the proceedings. The proceedings are still alive. The parties to the litigation are having full opportunity to place their case before the Authority concerned. (ii) The application(s) rejected by the revenue court of first instance vide order dated 24.01.2023 were filed seeking impleadment of vendors of the sale deeds and consequential amendments and the same were rejected by the revenue court of first instance after observing that in summary proceedings, the said application(s) are not maintainable and in the sale deeds the relevant Gatas have not been indicated, which ought to have been decided as per law settled including in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, relevant paras of which are as under:- "70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)." For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench