Allahabad High Court
MANISH DIXITversusMAHANT PANCHAM DASS AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The revisionist lacks locus standi to challenge the substitution order, and the order is affirmed.
Summary
Manish Dixit filed a civil revision challenging an order that allowed the plaintiff's substitution application in an original suit. Dixit was not a party to the suit when the substitution was permitted and his earlier attempt to be impleaded had been rejected. He argued that a prior judgment in First Appeal No. 243 of 1977, which had impleaded his father, gave him a right to contest the substitution. The court held that the earlier judgment did not create an independent right for Dixit, especially since his own impleadment claim was denied. Consequently, the court found Dixit had no locus standi to object to the substitution and affirmed the lower court's order, dismissing the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether the revisionist has locus standi to challenge the substitution order when his impleadment claim was rejected.
- Whether the judgment in First Appeal No. 243 of 1977 confers an independent right on the revisionist to contest the substitution.
- Whether the impugned order allowing substitution is illegal or infirm.
Subjects
- substitution of parties
- impleadment
- locus standi
- civil revision
- appeal jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL REVISION No. - 59 of 2021
Manish Dixit
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Mahant Pancham Dass And Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shashwat Kishore Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Himanshu Raghav Pandey, Ram Kishore
Pandey, Siddharth Niranjan
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
CLRE No. 59 of 2021
2
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
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…