Kameel Ahmad And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt.,

Heard Sri Satish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 to 4, Sri Virendra Mishra on behalf of respondent No.5, Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Sukh Deo Singh for respondent No.6 and Sri Shyam Mohan Pradhan on behalf of respondent No.11.

2. The vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent No.11 and the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners are taken on record.

3. This Court is proceeding to decide the matter finally at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the private respondents in as much as the defendants are represented by their respective counsel and accordingly they represent the rights of all the defendants, therefore, we proceed to decide the matter without issuing notices to remaining defendants.

4. It has been submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit under Section 229 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against opposite party No.s 6 to 18 before Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Sultanpur. It has been submitted that it is during pendency of the suit proceedings that 2 WRIC No. 10686 of 2025 plaintiff No.2 Gullur, plaintiff No.3 Majeed and plaintiff No.6 Jhinguri died and accordingly application for abatement of the suit were filed by the defendant.s It is further submitted that the petitioners did not take any step to file any application for substitution and it is only at a very belated stage that an application was moved on 4.9.2024 and on the same date the petitioner filed application for setting aside the abatement. It has been submitted on behalf of opposite party No.2 Gullur had died on 9.11.2018, plaintiff No.3 Majeed died on 11.7.2023 and opposite party No.5 Jhinguri had died on 5.2.2016 and considering the fact that an application for substitution has to be filed within ninety days, the application preferred by the petitioner was highly belated.

5. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur by means of order dated

27.9.2024 allowed the application with regard to Majeed as the same was within time but with regard to opposite party No.2 Gullur and opposite party No.5 Jhinguri the application for setting aside the abatement was rejected as no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming for the delay in filing the application for substitution and for setting aside the abatement.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.2024 had preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Sultanpur who also found that no satisfactory explanation has come forth and affirmed the order dated 27.9.2024 and rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the present writ petition has challenged both the orders dated 11.9.2025 and 27.9.2024.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit stating that legal heirs of Gullur i.e. opposite party No.6, 7 and 17 were facing criminal prosecution in case crime / FIR No.71/2017 under Section 498A and 323 of IPC registered at police station Mahila Thana, District Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that due to the criminal proceedings and their pre - occupation with 3 WRIC No. 10686 of 2025 participation in the same, they could not file the application for setting aside abatement or application for substitution. It is in aforesaid circumstances that prayer has been made that considering the aforesaid facts taking an equitable view of the matter the writ petition may be allowed and the delay in filing the same before he trial court be condoned and also that the application for setting aside abatement may also be allowed.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted on their behalf that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the trial court as well as appellate court and therefore no interference is required to be made by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

10. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, we find that before the trial court though no explanation for condonation of delay was made but explanation has been filed before this Court with supplementary affidavit stating that some of the legal heirs of the deceased were facing criminal trial and, therefore, they could not file application for substitution within the time prescribed. It has been stated that on conclusion of the trial they filed an application for setting aside the abatement and for condonation of delay and, therefore, prayer has been made that the said circumstances may also be considered by the writ Court and on the basis of the said explanation the petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside.

11. Considering the aforesaid, it is noticed that it is not disputed question that the subject matter of the said proceedings is for declaration of title which is contested between co-tenants. We find that undoubtedly the application for substitution was filed belatedly but the respondents have not been able to indicate whether there has been any malafide or deliberate delay in filing the same due to financial background of the petitioners and also considered that they were facing criminal proceedings there was some delay but it seems that the said facts were never placed before the appellate court or before the trial court. Even the respondents while opposing the writ 4 WRIC No. 10686 of 2025 petition have fairly submitted that they do not dispute pendency of the criminal proceedings In exercise of equitable jurisdiction, we find that the controversy of the nature which is engaging the attention of the trial court cannot be fully decided unless and until all the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiffs are also made parties and quietus is given to the litigation of the nature which is pending before the trial court. Apart from the above, this court is satisfied that the adequate reasons have been given for filing the substitution application with delay.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated

11.9.2025 passed by Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, District Ayodhya in Appeal No.2690/2024 as well as order dated 27.9.2024 passed in case No.498/2013-14 is set aside.

13. The application for condonation of delay and the application for setting aside abatement preferred before trial court as well as appellate court stands allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.12,000/- with Rs.1000/- per defendant. Let the said amount be paid within four weeks from today. On compliance of the same, the suit proceedings shall stand restored with regard to deceased plaintiffs and after making necessary substitutions as already directed by this Court, the trial shall proceed to decide the matter with expedition.

14. That parties before this Court have submitted that the trial court may be directed to expedite the trial. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, it is directed that the trial shall be concluded within eight months, in case there is no legal impediment in accordance with law.

15. The parties undertake to cooperate in the trial proceedings. November 21, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Satish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 to 4, Sri Virendra Mishra on behalf of respondent No.5, Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Sukh Deo Singh for respondent No.6 and Sri Shyam Mohan Pradhan on behalf of respondent No.11.

2. The vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent No.11 and the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners are taken on record.

3. This Court is proceeding to decide the matter finally at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the private respondents in as much as the defendants are represented by their respective counsel and accordingly they represent the rights of all the defendants, therefore, we proceed to decide the matter without issuing notices to remaining defendants.

4. It has been submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit under Section 229 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against opposite party No.s 6 to 18 before Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Sultanpur. It has been submitted that it is during pendency of the suit proceedings that 2 WRIC No. 10686 of 2025 plaintiff No.2 Gullur, plaintiff No.3 Majeed and plaintiff No.6 Jhinguri died and accordingly application for abatement of the suit were filed by the defendant.s It is further submitted that the petitioners did not take any step to file any application for substitution and it is only at a very belated stage that an application was moved on 4.9.2024 and on the same date the petitioner filed application for setting aside the abatement. It has been submitted on behalf of opposite party No.2 Gullur had died on 9.11.2018, plaintiff No.3 Majeed died on 11.7.2023 and opposite party No.5 Jhinguri had died on 5.2.2016 and considering the fact that an application for substitution has to be filed within ninety days, the application preferred by the petitioner was highly belated.

5. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur by means of order dated

27.9.2024 allowed the application with regard to Majeed as the same was within time but with regard to opposite party No.2 Gullur and opposite party No.5 Jhinguri the application for setting aside the abatement was rejected as no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming for the delay in filing the application for substitution and for setting aside the abatement.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.2024 had preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Sultanpur who also found that no satisfactory explanation has come forth and affirmed the order dated 27.9.2024 and rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the present writ petition has challenged both the orders dated 11.9.2025 and 27.9.2024.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit stating that legal heirs of Gullur i.e. opposite party No.6, 7 and 17 were facing criminal prosecution in case crime / FIR No.71/2017 under Section 498A and 323 of IPC registered at police station Mahila Thana, District Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that due to the criminal proceedings and their pre - occupation with 3 WRIC No. 10686 of 2025 participation in the same, they could not file the application for setting aside abatement or application for substitution. It is in aforesaid circumstances that prayer has been made that considering the aforesaid facts taking an equitable view of the matter the writ petition may be allowed and the delay in filing the same before he trial court be condoned and also that the application for setting aside abatement may also be allowed.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted on their behalf that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the trial court as well as appellate court and therefore no interference is required to be made by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

10. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, we find that before the trial court though no explanation for condonation of delay was made but explanation has been filed before this Court with supplementary affidavit stating that some of the legal heirs of the deceased were facing criminal trial and, therefore, they could not file application for substitution within the time prescribed. It has been stated that on conclusion of the trial they filed an application for setting aside the abatement and for condonation of delay and, therefore, prayer has been made that the said circumstances may also be considered by the writ Court and on the basis of the said explanation the petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside.

11. Considering the aforesaid, it is noticed that it is not disputed question that the subject matter of the said proceedings is for declaration of title which is contested between co-tenants. We find that undoubtedly the application for substitution was filed belatedly but the respondents have not been able to indicate whether there has been any malafide or deliberate delay in filing the same due to financial background of the petitioners and also considered that they were facing criminal proceedings there was some delay but it seems that the said facts were never placed before the appellate court or before the trial court. Even the respondents while opposing the writ 4 WRIC No. 10686 of 2025 petition have fairly submitted that they do not dispute pendency of the criminal proceedings In exercise of equitable jurisdiction, we find that the controversy of the nature which is engaging the attention of the trial court cannot be fully decided unless and until all the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiffs are also made parties and quietus is given to the litigation of the nature which is pending before the trial court. Apart from the above, this court is satisfied that the adequate reasons have been given for filing the substitution application with delay.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated

11.9.2025 passed by Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, District Ayodhya in Appeal No.2690/2024 as well as order dated 27.9.2024 passed in case No.498/2013-14 is set aside.

13. The application for condonation of delay and the application for setting aside abatement preferred before trial court as well as appellate court stands allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.12,000/- with Rs.1000/- per defendant. Let the said amount be paid within four weeks from today. On compliance of the same, the suit proceedings shall stand restored with regard to deceased plaintiffs and after making necessary substitutions as already directed by this Court, the trial shall proceed to decide the matter with expedition.

14. That parties before this Court have submitted that the trial court may be directed to expedite the trial. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, it is directed that the trial shall be concluded within eight months, in case there is no legal impediment in accordance with law.

15. The parties undertake to cooperate in the trial proceedings. November 21, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench