# Bihari Yadav v. Raj Kumar Pandey and others) passed by Human Right Protection

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 585
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-07
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 15414 of 2025
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bihari-yadav-v-raj-kumar-pandey-and-others-passed-by-human-right-protection-53945
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1 All. Krishna Bihari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
585

25. The framers of the Act have clearly expressed their intention in Sections 12, 20 and 25 while
protecting the tenant from eviction except on the grounds mentioned in Section 20, that after the death of the
original tenant his heirs will be deemed to be holding the premises as joint tenants and for any breach
committed by any of such joint tenants, all the heirs of the original tenant have to suffer. They cannot take a
plea that unless the grounds for eviction mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 20 are established individually
against each one of them, they cannot be evicted from the premises in question.

24. In Durga Prasad Tiwari v. Additional District Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Allahabad:
(2008) 1 All.L.J. 518 = 2007 SCC OnLine All 590, this Court held that

20. ...The Supreme Court in the case of Harish Tandon (supra) has categorically held that the
heirs of tenant inherit the premises as joint tenants and not as tenants-in-common and therefore, the notice
to one was sufficient notice to all for the purpose of the proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The
Supreme Court held that after the death of the original tenant, his heirs became the joint tenants and not
tenants-in-common .

Therefore, the petitioner no. 2 being merely one of the several joint tenants, even in case there was
any defect in service of notice upon her, it would not make the decree passed against all the joint tenants a
nullity when the notices were served on the other joint tenants.

25. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners next submitted that summons of the suit were not
properly served on the original defendant. The trial court has recorded a satisfaction regarding proper
service of the suit in the order dated 10.12.2012, on the basis whereof the ex-parte judgment and decree
dated 03.10.2013 was passed. The petitioners did not assail the order dated 10.12.2012 and they did not
file any revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the ex-parte judgment
and decree dated 03.10.2013. It is settled law that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and
cannot examine the facts recorded or the satisfaction recorded by the trial court in the ex-parte judgment or
in any order passed during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, this plea is not open to be raised in a
proceeding under Section 47 CPC.

26. In view of the foregoing discussions, I find no good ground to entertain the petition, which is dismissed
at the admission stage.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 585
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 15414 of 2025

Krishna Bihari Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Whether the order dated 30.08.2025 in Petition No. 669 of 2025 U/s 12/13 Human Right Protection Act
(Krishna Bihari Yadav Vs. Raj Kumar Pandey and others) passed by Human Right Protection
Commission/Special Judge Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Allahabad, is liable to set aside.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227; The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993- Sections 12/13-
Litigant has come to Court with clean hands and disclose all the facts of the case-It is not for him to choose
as to which fact has to disclose and which is not to be disclosed- The litigant has to disclose each and every
fact pertaining to the matter before the Court and leave it on the Court to decide it. He cannot decide what to
disclose and what not to disclose before the Court.
Held- That filing of the present petition is clearly abuse of process of Court and its filing also flows from
severe concealment of material and relevant facts. On merits there is no illegality or irregularity in the order
impugned - The order dated 05.11.2025 as passed by the court concerned and then the applicant moving the
second petition for the same cause has not been disclosed in the present petition. Even arraying new parties
in the present petition who were not respondents in the original petition before the court concerned is also a
new instance without any justifiable reason- petition is thus dismissed with a exemplary cost of Rs. 20,000/-
on the petitioner. (Para 13 & 14) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath: (1994) 1 SCC 1 ; Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav Vs. Karmveer Wagh
Education Society & Others: (2013) 11 SCC 531 ; Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu: (2013) 9 SCC
199 ; Nidhi Kaim Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: (2017) 4 SCC 1 ; Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha: (2024) 4
SCC 432 ; Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & others: 2025 INSC 884

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

List of Keywords
Clean hands; Disclosing all the facts; Litigant cannot decide; What to disclose and what not to disclose before
the Court.

Case Arising From
The order dated 30.08.2025 in Petition No. 669 of 2025 U/s 12/13 Human Right Protection Act (Krishna Bihari
Yadav Vs. Raj Kumar Pandey and others) passed by Human Right Protection Commission/Special Judge
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Allahabad

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijai Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Om Krishna Yadav

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Vijai Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Om Krishna Yadav,
learned counsel for the respondent no.8 and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and
perused the records.

3. Vakalatnama of Sri Om Krishna Yadav is not on record despite his name being printed in
the cause list.
1 All. Krishna Bihari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
587

4. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet about
it.

5. This petition for writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the
petitioner Krishna Bihari Yadav son of late Kalideen, with the prayers to issue a order or
direction to set-aside the order dated 30.08.2025 in Petition No. 669 of 2025 U/s 12/13 Human
Right Protection Act (Krishna Bihari Yadav Vs. Raj Kumar Pandey and others) passed by Human
Right Protection Commission/Special Judge Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1,
Allahabad and with a further prayer to issue a order or direction by directing the Human Right
Protection Commission/Special Judge Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1
Allahabad to allow the prayer made by the petitioner with regard to registering a First Information
Report against respondent no.2 to 7 after making proper inquiry under Sections 115(2), 119(1),
119(2), 198, 199, 308(5), 308(6), 352, 351(2)(3), 332, 324(4), 61(2), 201, 229, 248, 255, 256, 257,
258 BNS.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the order impugned dated
30.08.2025 passed by the Human Rights Protection Commission/Special Judge, Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Allahabad is an illegal order inasmuch as the court has allowed his
application numbered as Paper No. 14-kha to the records but by the same stroke has dismissed his
petition being Petition No. 669 of 2025 and the matter has been directed to be consigned to records.
It is submitted that the said order thus is totally illegal, perverse and deserves to be set aside. It is
submitted that if the application paper No.14-kha of the petitioner was allowed by the court
concerned the Crl. Misc. Case No. 669 of 2025 (Krishna Bihari Yadav Vs. Ram Kumar Pandey and
others) could not have been ordered to be dismissed. It is submitted that as such the present petition
be allowed and the prayers as prayed be granted.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.8 raises a preliminary objection in the present
matter by submitting that in so far as the respondent nos. 8 and 9 namely Bhola Yadav and
Awadhesh Kumar Yadav are concerned, they are not impleaded as a respondents in the original
application filed before the court concerned by the petitioner and thus they could not have been
impleaded as respondents in the present petition. It is submitted that the said act is totally
mischievous act and the petition deserves to be dismissed on the said ground itself. Further he
submits that there has been material concealment and misstatement in the present petition for writ
inasmuch as the petitioner in para no. 1 states it is the first petition for the relief claimed therein
whereas after the order impugned dated 30.08.2025 he moved another petition under Section 12
and 13 of the Human Rights Act, 1993 before the court of Human Rights Protection/Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Prayagraj being Petition No. 938 of 2025 (Krishna Bihari
Yadav Vs. Ram Kumar Pandey and others) which stood dismissed vide order dated 05.11.2025,
copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is submitted that
there is no disclosure about the said fact which was relevant and important and should have been
mentioned in the present petition. It is submitted that even the petitioner has moved application
before the Human Rights Commission, Lucknow and the proceedings therein are going on in which
replies have been sought from the police authority also and the petition/complaint therein is
pending and even the fact has not been disclosed in the present petition for writ. It is submitted that
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thus there is material concealment of relevant facts and the present petition be dismissed with
exemplary cost.

8. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the petition and arguments of learned counsel
for the petitioner and submitted that that in so far as the order impugned is concerned, the same was
passed on an application dated 29.08.2025 filed by the petitioner/complainant Krishna Bihari
Yadav before the court concerned mentioning therein that due to inadvertence the complaint has
been filed before wrong court whereas it should have been filed before the District and Sessions
Judge, Allahabad and thus he had prayed that he may be permitted to file a fresh petition before the
appropriate court and the petition filed by him be directed to be withdrawn. It is submitted that the
said application was moved as paper No.14-kha before the court concerned and vide order dated
29.08.2025 the said application was allowed by specific order and the petition as filed before the
court concerned numbered as Petition No. 669 of 2025 was dismissed and thus the natural
consequences which flows is that the petition has been withdrawn seeking liberty to file it before
the appropriate court which was allowed and the petitioner before this Court had the liberty to file
the petition before the appropriate court. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that
the petitioner approached the concerned court for filing of his petition. It is submitted that there is
no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned and the said order has been passed on the
Application No. 14-kha of the petitioner himself which was for the said prayer which was allowed
in full. He further submits that the filing of the present petition is clearly abuse of process of court
and the same be dismissed with cost.

9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident
that the petitioner filed a complaint before the court of the Human Rights Commission/Special
Judge, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Prayagraj numbered as Petition No. 669
of 2025 (Krishna Bihari Yadav Vs. Ram Kumar Pandey and others) under Sections 12 and 13 of
the Human Rights Act, 1993, the matter was pending before the said Court after which an
application dated 29.08.2025 numbered as paper No.14-kha before the court concerned was filed
by the petitioner mentioning therein that due to inadvertence the said case has been filed before the
said court whereas it had to be filed before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad and
thus it was prayed that the said petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh petition before the
appropriate court and his petition to be directed to be returned and appropriate orders be passed. On
the said application, the court concerned vide order impugned dated 30.08.2025 allowed the
application paper No. 14-kha of the petitioner and dismissed the Petition No. 669 of 2025. The said
order is a specific order in the facts and circumstances of the case as prayed by the petitioner
himself. There is no illegality or irregularity in the same since the petitioner had prayed for
withdrawal of his petition and approaching the appropriate court as per his wisdom as mentioned in
his application No. 14-kha to the records. The said application was allowed and his complaint was
dismissed.

10. This Court does not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order impugned dated
30.08.2025. The same has been passed on an application filed by the petitioner himself before the
court concerned and his prayer was allowed.
1 All. Krishna Bihari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
589

11. Now coming to the concealment of relevant and material facts in the present petition for
writ, the records show that the respondents nos. 8 and 9 namely Bhola Yadav and Awadhesh Yadav
respectively are not the respondents in the original application dated 07.06.2025 filed by the
petitioner before the court concerned, certified copy of which is from page 16 of the paper book.
No reason whatsoever has been stated as to why new persons have been impleaded as respondents
in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also is unable to satisfy the Court
regarding the reason why new persons who were not initially respondents in the complaint have
been impleaded as respondents in the present petition. This fact remains a mystery.

12. Further the fact that subsequent to the order impugned dated 30.08.2025 passed by the trial
court, a petition under Section 12 and 13 of the Human Rights Act, 1993 was again filed by the
petitioner before the Court of Human Rights Protection Commission/Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Prayagraj numbered as Petition No. 938 of 2025 (Krishna Bihari
Yadav Vs. Ram Kumar Pandey and others) and the same was dismissed vide order dated
05.11.12025 is also neither pleaded nor disclosed in the present petition. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further could not justify regarding the non-disclosure before this Court in the present
petition of filing of a subsequent petition for the same cause before the court concerned.

13. The law with regards to pleadings and disclosure of relevant and important facts is trite as
has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath:
(1994) 1 SCC 1 ; Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav Vs. Karmveer Wagh Education Society & Others:
(2013) 11 SCC 531 ; Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu: (2013) 9 SCC 199 ; Nidhi
Kaim Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: (2017) 4 SCC 1 ; Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha:
(2024) 4 SCC 432 ; Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh &
others: 2025 INSC 884, it has been held that in no specific terms that a litigant has come to Court
with clean hands and disclose all the facts of the case. It has further been held that it is not for him
to choose as to which fact has to disclose and which is not to be disclosed. It is held that he has to
disclose each and every fact pertaining to the matter before the Court and leave it on the Court to
decide it. He cannot decide what to disclose and what not to disclose before the Court. Further
regarding the disclosure the law as has been settled is to the extent that even a passing reference of
a certain facts has not been considered to be a disclosure of a fact and it has to be in full and
complete.

14. In the present case, there is concealment of relevant fact and material. The order dated
05.11.2025 as passed by the court concerned and then the applicant moving the second petition for
the same cause has not been disclosed in the present petition. Even arraying new parties in the
present petition who were not respondents in the original petition before the court concerned is also
a new instance without any justifiable reason.

15. This Court has come to the conclusion that filing of the present petition is clearly abuse of
process of Court and its filing also flows from severe concealment of material and relevant facts.
On merits there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. The present petition is thus
dismissed with a exemplary cost of Rs. 20,000/- which is imposed on the petitioner, to be
deposited within a period of three weeks before the Registrar General of this Court. When the said
amount is deposited, the same shall be transferred to the account of the High Court Legal Services
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee for its utilization. If the said amount is not deposited, the Registrar General shall issue a
letter to the District Magistrate/Collector, Prayagraj for recovery of the said amount as land revenue
from the writ petitioner who shall recover it and transmit to the Registrar General of this Court for
its utilization as stated aforesaid.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 590
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 109 of 2025

Piyush Verma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether Opposite Party No.2 violated conditions of anticipatory bail by seeking adjournments, thereby
justifying cancellation of bail.
HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections - 205, 317, 439, - Indian Penal Code
(IPC) - Sections - 120-B, 406, 420 - Bail cancellation application - filed for seeking cancellation of
anticipatory bail - granted to accused opposite party no. 2 - by the Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi -
Applicant pleaded that the accused misused bail conditions by seeking repeated adjournments and not
cooperating with trial - Opposite party argued that only exemption applications were filed, not adjournments,
and proceedings were not delayed - Distinction between adjournment applications and exemption applications
- Court finds that exemption applications are distinct from adjournments, no violation of bail conditions
occurred - reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents (Bhaskar Industries Ltd. and Rameshwar Yadav)
- Held, Exemption from personal attendance does not delay proceedings - there is no ground to cancel bail -
accordingly, the bail cancellation application is rejected - with directions issued to the Registrar General of
High Court to circulate judgment to judicial officers to avoid confusion between adjournment and exemption
applications.(Para - 16, 17, 18)
Application rejected. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401,
Rameshwar Yadav v. State of Bihar (2018) 4 SCC 608.

LIST OF ACTS

Indian Penal Code (IPC),
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
LIST OF KEYWORDS
Bail cancellation - Anticipatory Bail - Exemption Application - Adjournment Application - Cooperation with Trial
- Bail Conditions - Misuse of Bail.

CASE ARISING FROM