Allahabad High Court
RAJAT AGARWALversusKUNJ BIHARI AGARWAL AND 5 OTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
A revision is not maintainable; the revision is disposed of with liberty to file a petition under Article 227.
Summary
The revisionist Rajat Agarwal filed a revision challenging an order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal/Additional District & Session Judge in Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2021. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that, according to the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal (AIR 1979 ALL 218), a revision would not lie against that appellate order. The Court examined this precedent and was not inclined to entertain the revision on that ground. The revisionist was then permitted to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for relief. Consequently, the revision was disposed of, granting the liberty sought by the revisionist. The certified copy of the order was to be returned to counsel after retaining a photocopy.
Issues considered
- Whether a revision is maintainable against the order of the Rent Tribunal/Additional District & Session Judge in view of the precedent set by Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
Subjects
- revision
- jurisdiction
- Article 227
- Rent Tribunal
- civil appeal
- preliminary objection
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL REVISION No. - 157 of 2025
Rajat Agarwal
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Kunj Bihari Agarwal And 5 Other
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhishek Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Some Narayan Mishra
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 17.05.2025 passed
by Rent Tribunal/Additional District & Session Judge, Court No. 9,
Moradabad in Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2021.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the
respondent that against the order passed by appellate court, a revision will
not lie before this Court in view of Judgment of this Court in case of Jupiter
Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal and others reported in AIR
1979 ALL 218.
4. In view of this legal position, I am not inclined to entertain the instant
revision.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that he may be permitted to
challenge the order impugned by means of a petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of with liberty as prayed for.
7. Certified copy of the orders, if any, be returned to learned counsel for the
revisionist after retaining photo copy of the same.
March 19, 2026
Ved Prakash
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…