Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17089 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 18850 of 2020 Petitioner :- Hari Shankar And Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Lko And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Kaushal Kishore,Virendra Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. C.M.A. Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2025 This substitution application has been filed seeking substitution on account of death of petitioner No.1 along with application seeking condonation of delay and setting aside abatement. The cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and abatement, if any, is set aside. The application for substitution shall stand allowed. Let the necessary incorporation shall be carried out in the array of the parties during the course of the day. Order on petition Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as the entire proceedings has sought to be quashed. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in Case No.03223 of 2019, the ADM passed an order on 27.11.2019 holding that the suit was maintainable. Challenging the said order, a revision was filed before the Commissioner. However, as the respondents did not get any interim order in the said revision, they preferred another revision before the Board of Revenue. In the said revision, the factum of the respondents having filed a revision before the Commissioner was concealed. It is argued that the Board of Revenue proceeded to pass an order on 08.09.2020 staying the proceedings in the Suit No.1992 of 2019. The neat submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proceedings initiated before the Board of Revenue under Section 210 in Revision No.777 of 2020 were an abuse of process of law and an order was obtained by concealing the material facts and on this ground alone, according to him, the petition deserves to be allowed. No one appears on behalf of the respondents even in the revised call. It is also informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision preferred before the Commissioner has now been withdrawn. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the order dated 27.11.2019, only decides the maintainability of the suit, I do not see any reason why the suit should not be decided finally. In view thereof, the order dated 08.09.2020 is quashed. The ADM is directed to decide the Suit No.03223 of 2019 strictly in accordance with law with all expedition. The parties would be at liberty to challenge any order that is passed in Suit No.03223 of 2019 and it would be open to them to argue, the appeal on the question of maintainability also. The petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench