HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6979 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- "I. Where for this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside order dated 15/11/2025 passed by the Learned District Judge Barabanki in Civil Revision No.65/2025 (Computerised No.UPBB010080292025) Arjun Prasad Mishra Vs Laxmi Saran contained in Annexure No.1. II. To quash the proceeding of civil revision 65/2025 (Computerised No.UPBB010080292025) Arjun Prasad Mishra Vs Laxmi Saran pending before Learned District Judge Barabanki" 3. Shri Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (in short, 'the Act of 1972'). A judgment and decree dated 15.09.2025 had been passed under the Act of 1972 against which the private-respondents preferred a revision before the District Judge, Barabanki. 4. It is urged that the said revision has been admitted vide order dated 15.11.2025 which is patently without jurisdiction. 5. It is urged that since the proceedings were under the Act of 1972, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amrendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Laxmi Saran .....Petitioner(s) Arjun Prasad Mishra .....Respondent(s) accordingly, no revision against the impugned order lay rather the appeal in terms of Section 22 of the Act of 1972 would be maintainable. This aspect has not been considered. 6. It is further urged that even if at all, the revision could be maintainable, it would have been in terms of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (in short, 'the Act of 1887'), however, the admission order indicates that it has been registered as a civil revision is also vitiated the said order. 7. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely misconceived for more than one reasons. 9. The record would indicate that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner being the landlord was on the basis of arrears of rent for which a decree of eviction was sought. The same came to be registered as S.C.C. Suit No.05/2019 which has been decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2025. 10. It is now too well settled to be disputed that any order passed in terms of the Act of 1887 assailing the same, revision under Section 25 of the Act of 1887 would be maintainable. Merely to cull out a sentence of the provisions of the Act of 1972 as applicable, would not mean that an appeal in terms of Section 22 of the Act of 1972 would be maintainable. This can only be where the proceedings were initiated before the Prescribed Authority under Section 21 of the Act of 1972 which admittedly is not the case here. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner per se is misconceived. 11. As far as the second limb of the argument is concerned, suffice it to state that the revision has been admitted which is in terms of Section 25 of the Act of 1887 inasmuch as the memo of revision which has been placed on record as Annexure No.2 clearly indicates that the provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 1887 has been invoked. A227 No. 6979 of 2025 2 12. Thus, for both the aforesaid reasons, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. Accordingly, the petition is also dismissed. The Court on request of a Senior Counsel has refrained for imposing cost on the petitioner. December 2, 2025 Rakesh/- A227 No. 6979 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench