Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26604 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2569 of 2025 Petitioner :- Praful Prakash Srivastava And Another Respondent :- First Addl. Dist. Judge Rae Bareli And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Masood Sajjad Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 23.10.2024 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed affirming the order dated 17.03.2023 by which, the learned Additional Civil Judge allowed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. by the opposite party and rejected the objection of the petitioners. 3. The facts in brief are that a Suit No.1269 of 2013 was filed, in which, an order dated 23.12.2014 was passed decreeing the suit ex-parte. An application was filed by the defendant for recalling of the said order dated 23.12.2014 and for restoration of the suit through Misc. Case No.6 of 2015, which was accepted vide order dated 30.08.2018. It was also stated that in the said application, which was registered as Misc. Case No.6 of 2015, in place of plaintiff no.1, it was shown as "dead" and his legal heirs were also impleaded. Opposing the said application, an application was moved on 04.01.2020 for quashing the miscellaneous case on the ground that the plaintiff "Ved Prakash" had died and on 26.07.2014, an order had been passed. It was also stated that an amendment application filed by the petitioners had also been dismissed on 30.08.2018. On the application filed by the opposite party, an order came to be passed on 17.03.2023 holding that an order had already been passed on 30.08.2018 and the court has no jurisdiction to set aside the order and the application filed came to be dismissed. The court also recorded that in the same miscellaneous case, an application 16-Ga was filed on 04.01.2020 and the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the same court was challenged but no revision was filed before any competent court of law and observing these facts an order came to be passed on 17.03.2023. 4. The revisional court and the court below rightly held that in the application filed although in place of the plaintiff no.1 "dead" was written, however, it appears from the record that this was a typographical error. 5. Considering the reasoning recorded by both the courts below, I do not see any reason to interfere with and correct the orders. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench