Allahabad High Court
RATNESH KUMAR JAISWAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as it is misconceived and amounts to an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, seeking a court direction to compel the revenue court (respondent No.2) to expedite Revision No. 582 of 2026. The petition was filed on 16 April 2026, before the notice dated 21 April 2026 had even been served on the opposite parties. The Court noted that the U.P. Revenue Court Manual (Para 458(2)) and the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (Rule 183(4)) require appellate and revisional courts to decide matters within six months of filing, but the petition was premature. The Court held that the petition amounted to an abuse of process because it sought to direct a proceeding that had not yet been properly notified. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as misconceived.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking to expedite a revision proceeding, filed before the statutory notice period to the opposite parties has expired, constitutes an abuse of process and is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 210
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. 183(4)
- U.P. Revenue Court Manual — s. 458(2)
Subjects
- writ petition
- revision
- expedition of proceedings
- abuse of process
- U.P. Revenue Code
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 1785 of 2026
Ratnesh Kumar Jaiswal And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Vivek
Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent no.2 to expedite and conclude the proceeding of Revision
No.582 of 2026 under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
pending before it, within a time framed as fixed by this Court.
3. Perusal of the record shows that the case was filed before the
respondent no.1 on 26.2.2026 in which notices have been issued to the
opposite parties fixing 21.4.2026, as the date fixed in the matter.
However, the present petition was presented before this Court on
16.4.2026 for expediting the proceeding of the aforesaid revision. The
provision of Para 458(2) of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual and the Rule
183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provide that the appellate
and the revisional court shall make all endeavours to decide the appeal
and revision within a period six months from the date of filing of the
appeal or revision.
4. The case in hand, the present petition for expediting the aforesaid
proceeding has been filed, even before the date fixed in the notice issued
to the opposite parties had expired. In my opinion, the present petition
amounts to an abuse of the process of Court seeking direction to expedite
the matter in which notices have not even been served on the opposite
parties, in accordance with law.
WRIB No. 1785 of 2026
2
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition being misconceived
is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
April 23, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…