Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39302 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4687 of 2002 Petitioner :- Sri Niwas Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Camp At Meerut And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Krishna,Dinesh Tiwari,Lal Sahab Yadav,Radheyshyam,Rakesh Srivastava Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 59457 of 2014 This application seeking condonation of delay has been filed in aid of Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 49459 of 2014, which has been made to bring on record the heirs and LRs of deceased- respondent no.6. Notice of this application was issued to the proposed respondent nos. 6/1, 6/2 and 6/3 by R.P.A.D. fixing 05.09.2023. The Office report dated 10.01.2025 shows that in compliance with this Court's order dated 03.07.2023, notice issued to the proposed respondent nos. 6/1, 6/2 and 6/3 by R.P.A.D. has neither been returned undelivered nor the acknowledgment received. Service upon the proposed respondents is, therefore, held sufficient. Upon perusal of the delay condonation application, this Court finds good ground to condone the delay in making the substitution application. The application is allowed and the substitution application treated to be within limitation. Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 59459 of 2014 This application has been filed to bring on record the heirs and LRs of respondent no.6, Salek Chand. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. S. K. Tyagi, Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent no.6 and the learned Standing Counsel, we find it fit to grant substitution. The application is allowed. Let the name of respondent no.6, Salek Chand be suffixed with the word 'deceased' and his heirs and LRs, whose names are indicated in the prayer clause of the substitution application, be brought on record as respondent nos. 6/1, 6/2 and 6/3 to the writ petition. The office shall carry out the necessary substitution forthwith. Order on writ petition In a suit for partition under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, a ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 15.11.1985 and a final decree, again ex parte, on 11.10.1991. An application to set aside this decree was made on behalf of the petitioner, who was a defendant to the suit instituted by Sita Ram and Om Prakash, original respondent no. 3 and his father. The application to set aside ex parte decree was allowed on 17.01.2001 by the Additional Sub Divisional Officer-I, Ghaziabad and the suit directed to proceed. The order dated 17.01.2001 was challenged by Om Prakash and three others by means of Revision No. 29/2000-2001 before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The revision came up before the Additional Commissioner on 17.07.2001, when an application was made that Lakhmi s/o Harvansh, respondent no.2 to the revision and defendant no. 5 of the suit, had died in the month of November, 1995 and Om Prakash, who was his heir, may be permitted to continue the proceedings on his behalf. There was rather a very incongruent plea raised in the application that, in fact, Om Prakash, who was already on record was none other than Lakhmi, the deceased. This application was allowed vide order dated 17.07.2001 by the Additional commissioner. The order dated 17.07.2001 was challenged in a further Revision to the Board of Revenue, which the Board dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2001 on ground that the order dated 17.07.2001 was an interlocutory order. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 17.07.2001, the petitioner has instituted this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. K. Tyagi is that this is not a simple case of substitution. He submits that these proceedings arise out of a partition suit, where each party to the suit, who is substituted on record, stakes a claim to a share in the suit property. He submits that the application which has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner by the order impugned dated 17.07.2001 was not to be allowed at all. In fact, the Additional Commissioner in allowing an amendment application treating Om Prakash as Lakhmi has created a case for Om Prakash to claim more that his share by posing as Lakhmi Chand. The fact is that Lakhmi Chand is Om Prakash's Uncle (Father's brother) and by establishing himself in the array as a person whose alias is Lakhmi Chand, he would claim more that his share in the suit property when the suit comes up for trial. Upon hearing Mr. S. K. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3, we are of opinion that the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. It is well known that a substitution application, in whichever way is granted, does not confer any beneficial interest or declaration of the right in favour of the person who is substituted. If the case of the petitioner is that Om Prakash and Lakhmi Chand are different persona, though both co-sharers, the order on the substitution application regarding Om Prakash as Lakhmi Chand will not enlarge Om Prakash's share. This issue if Om Prakash and Lakhmi Chand are one and the same person or different men, will be determined at the trial of the suit subject to the parties' evidence that is led. The order of substitution passed by the Additional Commissioner will not confer any status or right upon Om Prakash to duplicate for Lakhmi Chand and claim a double share or more that his share In this view of the matter and subject to the clarification that we have given, we do not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the order impugned. This writ petition fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Vijay Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad