ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 10 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - B No. - 1974 of 2026

Atul Kumar Srivastava
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 10 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Birendra Kumar, Jitendra Kumar
                                   Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : C.S.C., Mohd Sonu, Pankaj Kumar
                                   Gupta, Pankaj Kumar Rai, Rakesh
                                   Pathak, Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

Court No. - 55
                      HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; Sri Rakesh Pathak for the
respondent nos. 3 to 10 and Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta for the respondent no.
11.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent
no. 2, dated 23.03.2026, by which the Revision filed by the respondent nos.
3 to 10, challenging the order dated 06.01.2026, allowing the substitution
application has been entertained and the operation of the aforesaid order has
been stayed.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order
dated 06.01.2026 had been passed allowing the substitution application for
the purpose of continuing the proceedings pending before the Deputy
District Magistrate, Dumariyaganj, District Siddharthnagar. The said order
did not determine any right of the parties, as such, the present revision was
not maintainable. He has further contended that though the orders,
substituting the petitioner in the said proceedings, have been stayed, but the
proceedings pending before the Deputy District Magistrate was not stayed,
as such, during pendency of the revision, if any order deciding the mutation
proceeding is passed by the Deputy District Magistrate, it will adversely
affect the right of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has relied
upon judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Gayatri
                                                            WRIB No. 1974 of 2026
                                  2


Devi Vs. Shanti Devi and 2 others in Matters Under Article 227 No. 5860 of
2021, decided on 25.08.2025.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 10 contended that the
order under challenge is only an interim order and the revision has still to
be decided on merits. It is further contended that 28.05.2026 is the next
date fixed in the aforesaid revision. As the petitioner has already
appeared, the revision itself can be decided on merits.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

6. By the order dated 06.01.2026, challenged before the respondent no. 2,
in Revision No. REV/591/2026, the substitution application filed by the
petitioner on the basis of will executed by Sitaram, whose application for
substitution as the husband of deceased applicant Sursati Devi was
already pending in the said proceeding, has been allowed. As held by this
Court in the case of Gayatri Devi (supra), "by substitution, the substituted
heir steps into the shoes of original plaintiff or defendant, as the case may
be, and cannot claim any right other than and better than the original
plaintiff or defendant."

7. In the original case filed under Section 35(2) of the Revenue Code, the
right of Sursati Devi to inherit the property of Buchchun is yet to be
decided. Merely by substitution of the name of her husband or the legatee
of her husband could not create any right in their favour.

8. As the judgment of this Court in Gayatri Devi (supra) relied upon by
the petitioner was against the final orders passed in revision, on the said
basis interim order under challenge, cannot be set aside at this stage. As
the party to the revision pending before the respondent no. 2 have already
appeared, he can move an appropriate application for vacation of the stay
order and for deciding the revision itself on merits before the next date
fixed. No interference is warranted in the order of the respondent no. 2,
dated 23.03.2026, at this stage.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to
the petitioner to file an appropriate application for vacation of the order
                                                                                            WRIB No. 1974 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    dated 23.03.2026 before the respondent no. 2, which shall be considered and
                                    decided, on the next date fixed. It is made clear that the respondent no. 2
                                    shall make all endeavours to decide the revision finally, as the parties are
                                    ready for final disposal, on the next date fixed.



                                                                                             (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Ranjeet Sahu




Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad