Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39873 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6517 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahadev And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Sultanpur And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijai Bahadur Verma,Ram Naresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Rajesh Kumar Verma Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3, Sri Mohan Singh for respondent No.4 -Gaon Sabha and Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma has appeared on behalf of caveator- respondent No.9. 2. The present dispute has arisen when an application under Section 30 was given by opposite party No.9 who is son of opposite party No.5 and is a recorded tenure holder of gata No.72 situated in Village Baraipur Bhatpura, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur. It has been submitted that in the said proceedings despite the fact that the petitioners were made opposite parties but notices were never served and the Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur concluded the proceedings and allowed the application of opposite party No.9 directing the competent authority to amend the map and accordingly he further recorded that in allowing the said applicaditon gata No.s 65, 64, 67, 73 and 74 would be affected. 3. The petitioner, who is recorded tenure holder of gata No.65, moved an application for restoration stating that notices were not served upon him and the proceedings had concluded ex - parte by means of order dated 16.12.2022. The application for recall remained pending and in the meanwhile he preferred a revision against the order dated 16.12.2022 before Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya. The said revision came up to be finally decided by means of the impugned order dated 6.6.2025. 4. The revisional court recorded the fact the persons who would be affected by correction of map are holders of gata No.s 72, 65, 64, 67, 73 and 74. The recorded tenure holders should have been made parties in the said revision and accordingly the said revision is defective with the said defect the revison cannot be decided and accordingly proceeded to dismiss the revision solely on the aforesaid ground. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 6.6.2025 and 16.12.2022 in the present writ petition. 6. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for opposite party No.9 Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma has categorically submitted before this Court, on the basis of the instructions given to him by his client, that even in case the application of the petitioner under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code is allowed and the map of the petitioner is corrected with regard to his holding situated at gata No.72 then the rights of the petitioner existing on gata No.65 will not be affected. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely on the basis of technicality the the revision could not have been dismissed. He has further relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Manti Devi and another Vs. Kishun Sah Alias Kishun Deo Sao and others, (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 500 and submitted that merely a defect in the array of the parties would not be fatal to the proceeding unless and until an opportunity is given to the plaintiff/revisionist to make necessary correction in this regard. Even after giving opportunity if the parties do not comply with the direction then certainly the court would be within its jurisdiction to dismiss the petition.The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:- "4. The learned Senior Counsel, inviting our attention to Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contends that no decree shall be reversed or varied substantially on account of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties. Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “99. No decree to be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction.—No decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account of any misjoinder or non- joinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.” 5. The provision, in our view, is crystal clear. No decree can be reversed or substantially varied in appeal on account of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. Under Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, procedure under the Code in regard to suit shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable to proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. Therefore, what is provided under Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of appeal would apply to revision as well." 8. From a perusal of the order does not indicate that any opportunity was given to the petitioner to make necessary amendment or rectify the revision. Accordingly, we find that the impugned order rejecting the revision solely on the ground that the recorded tenure holders of gata No.s 65, 64, 67, 73 and 74 were not made parties in the revision, would not be fatal unless and untill the petitioners were given an opportunity to make necessary amendment. 9. Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma also does not oppose or dispute the the fact or the proposition of law and submtis that he does not even object that the matter may be remitted to the revisional court i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya i.e. opposite party No.2. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 6.6.2025 is quashed. 11. The matter is remitted back to opposite party No.2 to consider and decide the matter on merits. 12. The petitioner undertakes to file necessary application for amendment in the revision within next ten days and after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, opposite party No.2 shall proceed to consider and decide the revision with expedition on merits in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 14.7.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench