# Dr. Madhu Singh Chaudhary v. Dr. Atul Bharti

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1141
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-07
- **Case number:** J. First Appeal No. 130 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-madhu-singh-chaudhary-v-dr-atul-bharti-52629
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

appellant's application under Order XIV Rules 15 CPC seeking framing of an additional issue
regarding alleged adultery of the respondent
husband with another lady, based on objections
filed by a third party.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Family Courts Act, 1984 -
Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Sections 9, 13 - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) - Order I Rule 10, Order VI
Rule 17, Order XIV Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
Section - 151 : - Appeal under Section 19(1)
of the Family Courts Act, - challenging the
judgment and order - whereby an application
under Order XIV Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 read with
Section 151 C.P.C. was rejected - respondenthusband filed a divorce petition under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the
appellant-wife - amendments application filed
by husband - Allowed - during which one
alleged person was impleaded as opposite party
no. 2 without permission under Order I Rule 10
C.P.C. - later deleted, but he was re-impleaded
on an application under Order I Rule 10 read
with Section 151 C.P.C. - issues of cruelty,
marital relationship, adultery, and entitlement to
divorce were framed by the court - and
evidence
were
recorded
-
Family
Court
dismissed the plea holding allegations baseless
as they were not part of pleadings, no counterclaim was filed, and no prejudice was caused -
relying on discretionary powers under Order XIV
C.P.C., the Court held that framing of additional
issues arises only when material propositions
are asserted and denied through pleadings,
which was absent - allegations of adultery
against a third party were not part of the
pleadings nor subject matter of the divorce
petition, and appellant-wife neither sought
divorce nor filed counter-claim - hence, family
Court rightly exercised discretion in rejecting the
application, impugned order affirmed, and
accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Para - 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
No any case.

LIST OF ACTS
Family Courts Act, 1984, - Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Divorce Petition - Adultery Allegation - framing
of issues - Additional Issue - Impleadment of
Parties - Counter-Claim - Restitution of Conjugal
Rights - amendment of pleadings - Discretionary
Power of Court - Prejudice to Appellant -
Objections by Third Party - inherent powers.

CASE ARISING FROM
Divorce Petition No. H.M. 13 of 2016 filed by Dr.
Atul Bharti against Dr. Madhu Singh Chaudhary
before Family Court, Lucknow - Appeal filed
under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 challenging the order dated 07.07.2025 of
the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-8,
Lucknow

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Pratul Gupta.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Vivek Kumar
Rai.
1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

10 All. Dr. Madhu Singh Chaudhary Vs. Dr. Atul Bharti
1141
appellant after retaining the photostat
copies of the same.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1141
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI,
J.

First Appeal No. 130 of 2025

Dr. Madhu Singh Chaudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Atul Bharti ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Pratul Gupta, Ayush Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
Vivek Kumar Rai, Ajai Kumar

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the
appellant's application under Order XIV Rules 15 CPC seeking framing of an additional issue
regarding alleged adultery of the respondent
husband with another lady, based on objections
filed by a third party.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Family Courts Act, 1984 -
Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Sections 9, 13 - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) - Order I Rule 10, Order VI
Rule 17, Order XIV Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
Section - 151 : - Appeal under Section 19(1)
of the Family Courts Act, - challenging the
judgment and order - whereby an application
under Order XIV Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 read with
Section 151 C.P.C. was rejected - respondenthusband filed a divorce petition under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the
appellant-wife - amendments application filed
by husband - Allowed - during which one
alleged person was impleaded as opposite party
no. 2 without permission under Order I Rule 10
C.P.C. - later deleted, but he was re-impleaded
on an application under Order I Rule 10 read
with Section 151 C.P.C. - issues of cruelty,
marital relationship, adultery, and entitlement to
divorce were framed by the court - and
evidence
were
recorded
-
Family
Court
dismissed the plea holding allegations baseless
as they were not part of pleadings, no counterclaim was filed, and no prejudice was caused -
relying on discretionary powers under Order XIV
C.P.C., the Court held that framing of additional
issues arises only when material propositions
are asserted and denied through pleadings,
which was absent - allegations of adultery
against a third party were not part of the
pleadings nor subject matter of the divorce
petition, and appellant-wife neither sought
divorce nor filed counter-claim - hence, family
Court rightly exercised discretion in rejecting the
application, impugned order affirmed, and
accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Para - 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
No any case.

LIST OF ACTS
Family Courts Act, 1984, - Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Divorce Petition - Adultery Allegation - framing
of issues - Additional Issue - Impleadment of
Parties - Counter-Claim - Restitution of Conjugal
Rights - amendment of pleadings - Discretionary
Power of Court - Prejudice to Appellant -
Objections by Third Party - inherent powers.

CASE ARISING FROM
Divorce Petition No. H.M. 13 of 2016 filed by Dr.
Atul Bharti against Dr. Madhu Singh Chaudhary
before Family Court, Lucknow - Appeal filed
under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 challenging the order dated 07.07.2025 of
the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-8,
Lucknow

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Pratul Gupta.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Vivek Kumar
Rai.
1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by Shri
Pratul Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellant is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Pratul Gupta, learned
counsel for the appellant and Shri Vivek
Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the
respondent.

3. By means of the present appeal
under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts
Act, 1984, the appellant herein / opposite
party has challenged the judgment and
Order dated 07.07.2025 passed in Divorce
Petition having H.M. No. 13 of 2016, 'Dr.
Atul Bharti versus Dr. Madhu Singh' by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court- 8, District- Lucknow, whereby an
application under Order XIV Rule 1, 2, 3,
4, 5 read with Section 151 of the Civil
Procedure Code (CPC) has been rejected.

4. The facts of the case that have
culled out from the pleadings and are
relevant for the adjudication of the present
appeal, in brief, are that the respondent /
petitioner herein filed a divorce petition in
the Court of learned Principal Judge Family
Court, Lucknow on 19.05.2015, under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 against the appellant herein namely
Dr. Madhu Singh Chaudhary. In the said
proceeding, Dr. Atul Bharti the respondent
herein, filed an application under Order VI
Rule 17 of the CPC on 31.08.2015, inter
alia seeking certain amendments in the
petition. The respondent herein by means
of
the
said
application
prayed
for
permission
to
incorporate
certain
amendments in the paragraph No. 29 of the
petition and also to insert new paragraphs
numbered as '25.a' and '25.b'. The said
application preferred by the respondent was
allowed by the learned Court vide Order
dated
23.10.2015.
The
petitioner
/
respondent
herein
carried
out
the
amendments in the petition and also
impleaded one Shri Santosh Kumar as the
opposite party No. 2 in the petition without
taking any recourse in the manner as
prescribed under Order I Rule 10 CPC and
made amendment in the array of parties
without there being any order by the
learned Court permitting the respondent to
implead Shri Santosh Kumar as opposite
party No. 2. By means of the aforesaid
amendment, the petitioner / respondent
herein made allegation against the opposite
party / appellant herein that she is living in
adultery with the aforesaid Shri Santosh
Kumar (opposite party No. 2).

5. In response to the aforesaid divorce
petition, the present appellant filed a
Counter
Affidavit
in
the
month
of
February, 2016 inter alia denying the
allegations made against her in the said
divorce petition and also raised serious
objections
regarding
the
unlawful
impleadment of Shri Santosh Kumar as the
opposite party No. 2.

6. The aforesaid Shri Santosh Kumar
also filed a detailed Objection dated
05.12.2015
wherein
he
denied
the
allegations levelled against him, by the
plaintiff by way of amendment in the
divorce petition. In the said objections, he
narrated certain facts to indicate that the
respondent is in adulterous relationship
with a lady named as Km. Seema Rawat.
However, he very categorically submitted
in said objections that he has nothing to do
with the dispute between the couple i.e. the
present appellant and the respondent
herein. He further stated that unnecessarily
he has been dragged in the divorce
10 All. Dr. Madhu Singh Chaudhary Vs. Dr. Atul Bharti
1143
proceedings; perhaps to create undue
pressure upon him. He further asserted that
he belongs to a reputed family and his
impleadment as opposite party No. 2 in the
said divorce case has tarnished his image
and reputation in the society and he also
prayed for the deletion of his name from
the array of parties.

7. The learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., II vide Order dated
31.08.2016
directed
the
petitioner
/
respondent herein to delete the name of the
aforesaid Shri Santosh Kumar from the
array of parties, within three days. But the
petitioner / respondent herein did not
comply the said Order. However, the
learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge/ F.T.C., II, Lucknow vide order
dated 26.11.2016 granted permission to the
plaintiff / respondent herein to delete the
name of the aforesaid Shri Santosh Kumar
(opposite party No. 2). It would be relevant
to note here that the order for the deletion
of the name of the opposite party No. 2 was
passed by the learned Court below holding
therein that since no relief has been sought
against the opposite party No. 2 namely
Shri Santosh Kumar therefore he is not a
necessary party in the divorce petition, as
such it would not be proper to proceed
against him.

8. The respondent herein / petitioner
moved an application dated 13.08.2024
under Order I Rule 10 read with Section
151 of CPC seeking impleadment of the
aforesaid Shri Santosh Kumar as opposite
party No. 2. The learned Court below
allowed the said application vide order
dated 02.09.2024 without appreciating the
fact that the name of Shri Santosh Kumar
was directed to be deleted from the array of
parties by the detailed orders of the Court
dated 31.08.2016 & 26.11.2016.

9. The learned Family Court vide
order
dated
03.01.2017
framed
the
following issues: -

1. क्या प्रनतिादिनी द्िारा िाि के
साथ अत्यन्त कटुता का व्यिहार ककया गया?

2. क्या िाि एिं प्रनतिादिनी के
मध्य पनत पत्नी का सम्बन्ि स्थावपत नह ं है?

3. क्या प्रनतिादिनी जारता में ननिास
कर रह है?

4. क्या िाि प्रनतिादिनी से वििाह
विच्छेि की डडक्री प्राप्त करने का अचिकार है?

10. The evidence of the prosecution
witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were recorded
between the period 2017-2023 and the
defence witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 were
examined in between the period 20232024.

11. The appellant herein / opposite
party No. 1, after a period of about eight
years, filed an application dated 14.05.2025
under Order XIV Rule 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 read
with Section 151 CPC inter alia praying for
framing of additional issue on the strength
of the averments made by the opposite
party No. 2 in paragraph No. 1 under the
heading 'Additional Pleas' of the aforesaid
Objections filed by him. In response to the
said application, the petitioner / respondent
herein filed Objections. The Court of
learned Additional Principal Judge, Court
No.- 8, Family Court, Lucknow decided the
said application vide impugned order dated
07.07.2025. The operative portion of the
judgment and Order dated 07.07.2025 is
extracted here-in-below for convenience: -

"उियपक्ष द्िारा प्रस्तुत तको के
पररप्रेक्ष्य में पत्रािि का सम्यक पररशीिन
ककया।
1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

िौरान बहस प्रनतिादिनी के विद्िान
विचिक सिाहकार द्िारा कथन ककया गया कक
विपक्षी द्िारा स्ियं आपवत्त िाखखि नह ं की
गयी है अवपतु उसके विचिक सिाहकार द्िारा
आपवत्त की गयी है ि शपथपत्र प्रस्तुत नह ं
ककया गया है।

पत्रािि के अििोकन से विदित है
कक प्राथाना पत्र सी-129 प्रनतिादिनी द्िारा
अंतगात आिेश 14 ननयम 1,2,3,4,5 सपदठत
िारा 151 सी०पी०सी० प्रस्तुत ककया गया है।
उक्त प्राििान लसविि प्रककया में िाि-त्रबन्िु
विरचन से संबंचित है। परन्तु प्रनतिादिनी
द्िारा अपने प्राथाना पत्र सी-129 ि प्रत्युत्तर सी-
132 में पूिा में हुयी प्रकक्रयाओं पर प्रचनचचन्ह
िगाए हैं ि विद्िान प्रिान न्यायािीश महोिय
द्िारा पाररत आिेश का विचिेषण ककया गया है
जो कक ककसी िी दृजष्ट से उक्तं प्राििान के
अंतगता नह ं आते ि जजनकी बाबत पूिा में मत
व्यक्त ककया जा चुका है।

प्रनतिादिनी द्िारा जो िाित्रबन्िु
विरचचत करने की प्राथाना की गयी है िह िाि-
त्रबन्िु ना ह बनता है ि ना ह आिचयक है। िाि
द्िारा याचचत अनुतोष ि प्रनतिादिनी द्िारा
मूििाि
संख्या-2842/2023
में
बहैलसयत
िादिनी याचचत अनुतोष की बाबत िाि-त्रबन्िु
विरचचत ककये जा चुके हैं। पत्रािि प्राचीन श्रेणी
की है ि विगत कई नतचथयां पूिा बहस हेतु
ननयत की जा चुकी हैं। प्रनतिादिनी द्िारा त्रबना
ककसी आिार, विचिक प्राििान ि औचचत्य के
यह प्राथाना पत्र प्रस्तुत ककया गया है जजससे
पत्रािि की कायािाह वििंत्रबत हुयी है।

अतः प्राथाना पत्र स्िीकार ककये जाने
का कोई आिार नह ं है। प्राथाना पत्र सी-129 हजे
पर ननरस्त ककये जाने योग्य है।
आदेश

प्राथाना पत्र सी-129 मु0 500/- रूपय
हजे पर ननरस्त ककया जाता है।

पत्रािि
िास्ते
बहस
दिनााँक
16.07.2025 को पेश हो।"

12. The contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant is that the learned
Court
below
while
dismissing
the
application
of
the
appellant
seeking
framing theadditional issue has ignored the
material fact that has come into light
through the objections by the opposite
party No. 2 in response to the plaint filed
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 alleging therein that the plaintiff
/ respondent herein is having illicit
relations with one Km. Seema Rawat and
he is living in adultery. He further submits
that the person who himself is implicated of
living in adultery cannot level allegation of
adultery on the other side to seek divorce. It
has been very emphatically argued on
behalf of the appellant that the statement
made by the opposite party No. 2 in his
objections to the plaint is sufficient to give
rise to the framing of 'additional issue'
regarding the adultery on the part of the
plaintiff.

13. The learned counsel for the
appellant has contended that the nonframing of the additional issue on the basis
of the facts as disclosed by the opposite
party No. 2 under the heading 'Additional
Pleas' in his objections, goes to the very
root of the matter and in case if the
controversy pertaining to the adulterous
10 All. Dr. Madhu Singh Chaudhary Vs. Dr. Atul Bharti
1145
relationship between the respondent and
Km.
Seema
Rawat
is
not
properly
addressed by the learned Family Court
while deciding the respondent's case under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 shall cause serious prejudice to the
appellant.

14. Per contra, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent
raised
serious
objections
against the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant. He contended
that the instant appeal filed by the opposite
party No. 1 / appellant herein is just a
delaying tactic just to halt the proceedings
of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 which is pending
before the learned Family Court since the
year 2015. He submits that the issues were
framed in the case on 03.01.2017 in the
presence of the parties but the appellant
herein never raised any objection or
pressed for framing of any additional issue
and now when the case is ripe for final
decision and more particularly when the
stage of evidence is over, the appellant has
come out with such a prayer which is
totally unsustainable in law.

15. The next submission as advanced
by the learned counsel for the respondent is
that the appellant cannot press for framing
of additional issues of adultery on the basis
of the pleadings of third party i.e. defendant
No. 2. He further submits that in the instant
case, the appellant herein/ opposite party
has never filed any Counter-Claim to
establish the allegation of adultery against
the petitioner / respondent herein and there
is no assertion or denial on the part of the
appellant and the respondent on the same,
the learned Family Court has passed the
impugned order perfectly in accordance
with law and has rightly rejected the
petitioner's
application
regarding
the
framing of additional issues.

16. It is further submitted on behalf of
the respondent herein / petitioner that on
the one hand the appellant herein / opposite
party No. 1 herself has filed a case for
restitution of conjugal rights under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on
18.08.2023 and on the other hand she is
pressing for the framing of an additional
issue against the respondent herein /
petitioner regarding the adultery on his
part. That goes to show that the application
under Order XIV Rule 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 read
with Section 151 of CPC was filed by the
opposite party / appellant herein with an
ulterior motive which has been rightly
rejected by the learned Family Court by a
detailed
and
reasoned
order
dated
07.07.2025.

17. Order XIV of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) lays down rules for
the settlement of issues and determination
of suits on issues of law or on issues agreed
upon. Under Rule 1, issues arise when a
material proposition of fact or law is
affirmed by the one party and denied by the
other. Rule 2 give a discretion to the Court
to decide a particular issue as a preliminary
issue. Rule 3 give a discretion to the court
to frame issues on the basis of the
allegations made on oath by the parties or
by the persons present on their behalf or
made by the pleaders of such parties, the
allegations made in the plaint or in answer
to interrogatories delivered in the suit and
on the basis of the contents of documents
produced by either party; Rule 4 gives
power to the court to examine witnesses or
documents before framing issues. By Rule
5, power is conferred on the Court to
amend or strike out issues. Further power is
given under Rule 5 to frame additional
1146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issues on such terms as it thinks fit or as
may be necessary for determining the
matter in controversy between the parties.
The power to frame additional issues is a
discretionary power of the trial court.
Additional issues may be framed if the
Court thinks necessary for determining the
matter in controversy by an order refusing
to frame additional issues or allowing an
application for framing of additional issues
on right or obligation of the parties in
controversy is adjudicated upon by the
court. The Court, after examining the
pleadings and other material on record as
required under Rule 3, may frame the
issues.

18. A bare perusal of Rule I of Order
XIV of CPC makes it clear that necessity to
frame an issue would arise, if only, there is
assertions by one party and denial by
another. Such assertions and denials can be
only through pleadings. Each material
proposition affirmed by one party and
denied by the other should form the subject
of a distinct issue. The object of an issue is
to tie down the evidence and arguments and
decisions to a particular question so that
there may be no doubt on what the dispute
is. The judgment, then proceedings issuewise would be able to tell precisely how the
dispute was decided.

19. However, if by such a refusal to
frame issues a serious prejudice is being
caused to the plaintiff or the defendants
then it is always expedient for the trial
court to exercise its jurisdiction in framing
such issues to facilitate the parties to
adduce evidence in the light of pleadings
on the basis of which issues were framed.

20. In the given facts of the present
case no right or obligation of a party is
determined by an order refusing to frame
additional issues such an order cannot be
held to be deciding a case between the
parties, thus, we do not find that any
prejudice would be caused to the appellant /
defendant. When the case under Section 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been
instituted
by
the
husband
wherein
allegation of adultery has been levelled
against the wife, so the determination of
allegation of adultery against the husband
shall be of no consequence in the instant
case. In any case, it is the discretionary
power of the Trial Court to frame
additional issues if it finds it necessary for
determining the lis between the parties.

21. The allegation of illicit relation
with the Km. Seema Rawat with the
petitioner / respondent herein is not the
subject matter of dispute giving rise to the
filing of the petition under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the
respondent, nor a dispute for adjudication
in the said proceeding. The opposite party
No. 1 / appellant herein did not claim any
relief through counter-claim, thus the
learned Court below has rightly rejected the
said application dated 14.05.2025.

22. Taking into consideration the fact
that the respondent / husband, Dr. Atul
Bharti, instituted a petition under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against
his wife, Dr. Madhu Singh Chaudhary, the
appellant herein, alleging acts of cruelty
and adultery. The subject matter of the
dispute concerns the determination of the
issues framed on 03.01.2017, which
remained unchallenged for a period of eight
years. The appellant / wife subsequently
moved an Application under Order XIV of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
framing of additional issues based on
allegations raised by a third party against
the
respondent
/
husband
through
10 All. Roop Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1147
objections dated 05.12.2015. It is manifest
that
such
allegations
against
the
Respondent/husband did not constitute the
subject matter of the dispute which led to
the filing of the petition under Section 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein
the husband sought divorce. In reply
thereto, the appellant / wife filed a written
statement denying all allegations. The wife,
however, made certain averments disputing
the locus of the Respondent/husband by
contending that a person himself indulged
in
an
adulterous
relationship
cannot
maintain a petition on the ground of
adultery.

23. It is pertinent to observe that the
stand taken by the appellant / wife could
have afforded her a valid ground to seek
dissolution
of
marriage
against
her
husband. However, in the present case, she
has neither instituted a petition for divorce
nor filed any Counter-Claim to that effect.
Instead, she has instituted a proceeding
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 which is pending before the Family
Court, Lucknow.

24. Accordingly, the allegation of
adulterous
relationship
between
the
respondent / husband and Km. Seema
Rawat cannot be taken as an issue for
adjudication
in
the
pending
divorce
proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 instituted by the
respondent / husband. Consequently, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the
prayer of the appellant / wife seeking
framing of additional issues in respect of
the alleged adultery on the part of the
respondent / husband has been rightly
rejected by the learned Court below.

25. Therefore, in view of the above,
the Impugned Order dated 07.07.2025
passed by the learned Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court- 8, District- Lucknow,
rejecting the Application of the appellant /
wife, filed under Order XIV Rules 1, 2, 3,
4, 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, in Divorce Petition
having H. M. No. 13 of 2016, 'Dr. Atul
Bharti versus Dr. Madhu Singh' calls for no
interference by this Court and the same is
hereby affirmed.

26. Accordingly, the present appeal
stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1147
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 382 of 2016

Roop Narain & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ajeet Kumar, Hari Shanker Tripathi, M.P.
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C., Sushil Kumar Pandey

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the appellant was entitled to get
compensation for his acquired land on the basis
of highest market value reflected in the
exemplar?
2. Whether the acquired land of the appellant
was degraded, barren, low lying and unirrigated?
3. Whether the reference court has awarded the
correct
amount
of
compensation
to
the
appellant for his acquired land?

HEADNOTES