Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

GANGACHARANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 10 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The revisional court's order remanding the proceedings for fresh adjudication was lawful and not illegal.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order of the revisional court that remanded the proceedings back to the lower court for a fresh decision. The petitioner alleged that the revisional court had acted illegally in remanding the case. The High Court examined the record and the arguments of counsel and found no illegality in the revisional court's order. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the petition. The petition was disposed of, with the petitioner granted liberty to contest the pending proceedings before the lower court.

Issues considered

  • Whether the revisional court committed any illegality in remanding the proceedings for a fresh decision before the court below

Subjects

  • Writ Petition
  • Revisional Court
  • Remand
  • Procedural Law
  • High Court

Judgment

                                                  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                             WRIT - C No. - 14606 of 2026

                                    Gangacharan
                                                                                                    .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                         Versus

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

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Shreesh Srivastava, Sushil           Kumar
                                                                        Tewari
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)         : Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.

                                    Court No. - 36
                                                      HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

                                    1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Standing Counsel for State-
                                    respondents and perused the record.

                                    2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
                                    revisional court remanding the proceedings before the court below.

                                    3. The revisional court has not committed any illegality in remanding the
                                    proceedings for deciding afresh before the court below.

                                    4. In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the instant petition.

                                    5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
                                    contest the proceedings before the court below where the proceedings is
                                    pending.



                                                                                       (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Ved Prakash




Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.