HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5629 of 2015 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. This matter is of the year 2015 and listed under the heading of 'infructuous cases'. 2. In the revised call, counsel for petitioner has appeared and wants an adjournment in the matter. 3. In the said case, respondent no. 7 has sought substitution on the basis of application moved under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. The said application was dismissed by trial court against which a revision was preferred. The revision has been allowed by order impugned. 4. After going through records of the case, I find that no interference is required in the matter and only substitution has been claimed on the basis of purchase of the suit property under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. 5. The petition stands dismissed. October 8, 2026 (V. S. SINGH) Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shabana Nizam Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aadesh Kr. Srivastava, Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Rahul Chaudhary (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Shamim Ahmad And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Qaisar Bano And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad