HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1028 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent No. 1. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that an application U/S 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was preferred by the petitioner before the S.D.M. who had allowed the same by means of order dated 07.12.2023 and the property was duly partitioned. Subsequently, the private respondents had preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial-II), Lucknow which was also rejected by means of order dated 05.08.2025 pursuant to which private respondents have preferred a second appeal U/S 208 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue. 4. It is in the second appeal that the Board of Revenue while admitting the said appeal had issued notices to the respondents (petitioners) and directed the parties to maintain status quo and listed the matter for 27.11.2025. The aforesaid order was passed on 09.09.2025 and the petitioner instead of approaching Board of Revenue and filing his objections the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has preferred present writ petition assailing the order dated 09.09.2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar Bharti, Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Radhe Shyam .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue Thru. Its Chairman Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the controversy, this Court is of the considered view that the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC remains pending before the Board of Revenue and the same will be decided after the objection filed by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to file his objections pursuant to which the Board of Revenue will proceed to consider and decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC preferred by second appellant. 7. In light of the above, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned order dated 09.09.2025. However, in case the petitioner files his objection within next two weeks, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC shall be decided with expedition. 8. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed. November 10, 2025 Ravi/ WRIB No. 1028 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench