HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 862 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Mohan Singh for respondent No.4. 2. In view of the proposed order, notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had preferred an application under Section 134 of U.P. Revenue Code for ejectment before Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Amethi, District Amethi which was rejected on 27.2.2024 only on the ground that the petitioners have not made State of U.P. as a party and without impleading State of U.P., the proceedings for ejectment could not be maintained and also he has not clearly shown his share in the disputed property or whether there is any change in the land use as per Section 143 of U.P.Revenue Code and for the aforesaid reasons his case was dismissed. Against the order dated 27.2.2024 the petitioners had preferred an appeal before Additional Commissioner which was also rejected on the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satya Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Dharmendra Kumar Mishra And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s) ground of maintainability vide order dated 7.9.2024 and finally the revision was also rejected by the Board of Revenue dated 24.12.2024 and by means of the present writ petition all the three aforesaid orders dated 24.12.2024, 7.9.2024 and 27.2.2024 have been assailed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the objections on the basis of which his case was dismissed were curable defects and opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioners to implead State of U.P. and remove the defects in his application and only thereafter in case the petitioner had not removed the defects it was open for the trial court to have dismissed the application of the petitioner but without giving the said opportunity the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition but do not dispute the aforesaid facts. 6. From a perusal of the aforesaid impugned orders, it is clear that there was one major defect in the application preferred by the petitioners i.e. of not making State of U.P. as a necessary party and further the details pertaining to dispute land were not disclosed by him. This Court is of the considered opinion that not impleading a necessary party would not be fatal to the proceedings and the applicant can at any stage of proceeding be directed to implead any party without whom the proceedings cannot be continued. In the present case, we find that only on presentation of his application the respondents have rejected the same without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to make necessary amendment and corrections in the application. Accordingly, this Court is further of the considered opinion that on account of curable defects a person cannot be non-suited and he should be given opportunity to rectify his application before the same is rejected on the ground of maintainability. 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances as stated herein-above, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 24.12.2024, 7.9.2024 and 27.2.2024 are set aside. 8. The application of the petitioner under Section 134 is restored and he is directed to make necessary amendment as noticed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Amethi by means of order dated 27.2.2024. Let an WRIB No. 862 of 2025 2 application in this regard be moved by the petitioner within next two weeks. In case, the same is moved within the time prescribed,opposite party No.4 is directed to proceed in accordance with law and decide the same with expedition. September 9, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 862 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench