HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL REVISION No. - 59 of 2021 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Shri Shashwat Kishore Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record. 2. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents even in revised call. 3. By means of the present revision, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 6.2.2021 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C (New) Karwi, Chitrakoot in Original Case No. 1 of 2012 (Re- numbered) at Karwi, Chitrakut (Mahant Ram Asrey Dass versus Ganpat Singh and others) whereby the substitution application filed by the plaintiff, was allowed by the learned court below. 4. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the present revisionist was not a party to the suit at the time when the substitution application filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the learned trial court. 5. The contention of the revisionist is that his father was a party to the proceedings pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 243 of 1977. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the aforesaid aspect has already been considered in the connected matter, i.e., Civil Revision 33 of 24 (Manish Dixit vs Mahant Pancham Das) wherein it has been found that the father of the revisionist was impleaded in the appeal only for the purpose of continuation of the appeal, as the other appellants had died during its pendency. 6. In view of the aforesaid finding, the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 243 of 1977 does not confer any independent right upon the revisionist to challenge the substitution order, particularly when his Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shashwat Kishore Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Himanshu Raghav Pandey, Ram Kishore Pandey, Siddharth Niranjan Manish Dixit .....Revisionist(s) Mahant Pancham Dass And Others .....Opposite Party(s) impleadment application had already been rejected by the learned trial court. 7. It is further evident from the record that the revisionist had filed objections against the substitution application, which were rejected by the impugned order. However, the mere filing of objections by the revisionist would not, by itself, confer upon him any right to challenge the order allowing substitution, when his entitlement to participate in the proceedings as a party was itself under consideration and his claim for impleadment had been rejected. 8. In the circumstances, the revisionist had no locus to maintain objections against the substitution application in Original Suit No. 01 of 2012 or to challenge the order passed thereon by means of the present civil revision. 9. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10. The civil revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. September 11, 2026 SK CLRE No. 59 of 2021 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad