Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128071-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 657 of 2025 Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Sharma And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nikhil Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. The instant intra- court appeal is directed against an order dated 21.1.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 54741 of 2005, which is as follows: "1. Heard Sri Nikhil Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 2. Original petitioner- Ratan Lal Sharma died on 08.12.2011. Thereafter a Substitution Application No. 66083 of 2012 was filed seeking substitution of legal heirs of original petitioner, which was allowed vide order dated 05.04.2012 with a direction that necessary substitution be carried out in memo of petitioner. 3. Unfortunately counsel for petitioner remained lethargic and substitution in memo of petition was not carried out. Surprisingly when thereafter writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was restored on basis of a recall application filed by proposed legal heirs, who were not substituted till date, and said application was allowed. 4. When aforesaid position is confronted to learned counsel for petitioner, he submits that an opportunity be granted to him to carry out necessary substitution. However, Court is of the view that such a prayer cannot be allowed after about 12 years. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed." 2. The instant appeal is by the substituted heirs of the deceased, original petitioner- Ratan Lal Sharma. The submission is that the substitution application filed in writ petition was allowed by order dated 5.4.2012. The mere fact that the substitution was not carried out in the memo of parties, was not such a default as to dismiss the writ petition on the said ground. 3. We are of the opinion that the substitution application once allowed, the case should have been decided on merits. In writ jurisdiction, where provisions of CPC do not strictly apply, such a course would be harsh and has rendered the appellant remediless. 4. Consequently, the order of learned Single Judge dated 21.1.2025 is set aside. The appeal stands allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number and shall now be decide on merits in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants undertakes to carry out substitution in the memo of parties of the writ petition within one week. . (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Dhirendra/ Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad