# Raj Bahadur & Ors v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2488
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-10
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 1968 of 1978
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-bahadur-ors-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-faizabad-ors-52071
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Bireshwar Nath, Ashok Kumar Misra

When village had come under the consolidationobjections were filed by the Petitioners and
Respondents claiming their rights on Khata
no.23-Consolidation officer partly allowed the
claim in favor of the Petitioners-Two Appeals
filed Petitioner's Appeal rejected-Revision
filed-rejected-Impugned-Contending that the
Revision Court has exceeded its jurisdiction
u/s 48 of the Act, 1953-but the revisional
Court had not admitted any new fact either in
the form of document or otherwise -held that
the deputy Director of Consolidation has
unfettered powers in doing complete justice
between the parties- Deputy Director of
Consolidation is having jurisdiction to arrive at
a different conclusion on same evidence but
cannot exceed its jurisdiction by admitting
new facts.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that all eligible persons get a chance to
purchase it and L.D.A. gets the highest
possible consideration for the same.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2488
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ B No. 1968 of 1978

Raj Bahadur & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
R.K. Srivastava, A.R. Khan, Dr. Ramesh
Kumar Srivasta, Prem Chandra, Vijay
Kumar Dixit

Counsel for the Respondent:
Bireshwar Nath, Ashok Kumar Misra

When village had come under the consolidationobjections were filed by the Petitioners and
Respondents claiming their rights on Khata
no.23-Consolidation officer partly allowed the
claim in favor of the Petitioners-Two Appeals
filed Petitioner's Appeal rejected-Revision
filed-rejected-Impugned-Contending that the
Revision Court has exceeded its jurisdiction
u/s 48 of the Act, 1953-but the revisional
Court had not admitted any new fact either in
the form of document or otherwise -held that
the deputy Director of Consolidation has
unfettered powers in doing complete justice
between the parties- Deputy Director of
Consolidation is having jurisdiction to arrive at
a different conclusion on same evidence but
cannot exceed its jurisdiction by admitting
new facts.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
1.
Ram
Dular
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Jaunpur & ors. reported in 1994
Supp (2) SCC 198.

2. Moti & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors. reported in 2005 (99) RD
222

3. Shri Jagdamba Prasad (Dead) Thr. LRs. & ors.
Vs Kripa Shankar (Dead), Thr. LRs & ors.
reported in 2014 STPL (Web) 239 SC.

4. Preetam Singh (dead) by LRs. & ors. Vs
Assistant Director of Consolidation & ors.
reported in (1996) 2 SCC 273

5. Sheo Nand & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation Allahabad & ors. reported in 2000
(3) SCC 103

6. Sher Singh Vs Joint Director of Consolidation
& ors. reported in 1978 (3) SCC 172

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the record of the
case.

2. During the pendency of the present
writ petition, petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6
had died and their legal representative/heirs
have already been substituted (hereinafter
referred to as the petitioners). Similarly, the
respondent nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9/1, 10, 13, 14,
15, 15/1, 16 & 17 had died and their legal
representatives/heirs
have
also
been
substituted (hereinafter referred to as the
respondents).

3. The present petition has been
preferred for quashing of the impugned
revisional order dated 03.03.1978 passed
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that the original tenure
holder was Angad Rai and thereafter his son
5 All. Raj Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad & Ors.
2489
Purai. Purai had three sons namely Horilal,
Rikhai and Sheo Charan. The petitioners
belong to the family of Horilal whereas the
respondents belong to the family of Sheo
Charan. The dispute is between the
descendants of Horilal and Sheo Charan for
Khata No. 23 situated at Danpur, Tanda,
District Faizabad.

5. It is further submitted that when the
village had come under the consolidation,
the objections were filed by the petitioners
and the respondents claiming their rights on
Khata No. 23.

6. It is further submitted that the
Consolidation Officer had decided the
objections of the objectors and partly
allowed the claim in favour of the
petitioners with regard to certain Gatas of
Khata No. 23 treating it as a sole tenancy of
the petitioners.

7. It is further submitted that against
the said order, two appeals under Section 11
(1) of the Consolidation and Holdings Act,
1953 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act,
1953) were filed by the both the parties as
both were aggrieved. The appeal preferred
on behalf of the petitioners was rejected
vide order dated 04.04.1972 and the appeal
preferred on behalf of the respondents was
allowed. Against the appellate order dated
04.04.1972, the petitioners preferred a
revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953,
which was also dismissed and feeling
aggrieved the present writ petition has been
preferred.

8. It is further submitted that the
revisional
Court
has
exceeded
its
jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence
and substituting the findings given by the
Consolidation Officer by its own finding
which is not within the jurisdiction of
Deputy Director of Consolidation under
Section 48 of the Act, 1953.

9. It is further submitted that Section
48 of the Act, 1953 only empowers the
Director of Consolidation to examine the
record of any case decided or proceedings
taken by any subordinate authorities for the
purpose of satisfying himself as to the
regularity of the proceedings; or as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
order and not empowered for appreciating
the evidence and substituting it by his own
findings, hence the impugned order passed
by
the
revisional
court
is
without
jurisdiction
and
in
support
of
his
submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners
has
relied
upon
several
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as this Court, which are as follows:-

(i) Firstly, learned counsel for the
petitioners has relied upon the para no. 3 of
the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ram Dular vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and
Ors. reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 198.

(ii) Secondly, he has placed
reliance upon the para no. 6 of the judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Moti and
Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation
and Ors. reported in 2005 (99) RD 222.

(iii) Lastly, the learned counsel
for the petitioners has relied upon the para
nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shri
Jagdamba Prasad (Dead) Thr. LRs. &
Ors. vs. Kripa Shankar (Dead), Thr. LRs
and Ors. reported in 2014 STPL (Web) 239
SC.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel
for respondents and the learned State
Counsel has submitted that Section 48 of
the Act, 1953 has been amended and
2490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Explanation-III has been added by Act No.
3 of 2002 and giving it a retrospective effect
w.e.f 10.11.1980, whereby the Director of
Consolidation/Deputy
Director
is
empowered to examine the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order to
examine any finding whether of fact or by
law, recorded by any subordinate authority
with power to re-appreciate oral or
documentary evidence.

11. At this stage, learned counsel for
petitioner has submitted that Act No. III of
2002 has come into force with effect from
10.11.1980 empowering the Director of
Consolidation to examine any finding
whether of fact or law with power to
reappreciate oral or documentary evidence
whereas the order passed by the Revisional
Court is of the year 1978 when there was no
such amendment or power given to the
Deputy Director of Consolidation.

12. Learned State Counsel in reply to
the aforesaid has submitted that the
submission of learned counsel for petitioner
is not tenable. In support of his submission,
he has relied upon the certain relevant
paragraphs of the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The details of which are as
follows :-

(i) Preetam Singh (dead) by
LRs. and Ors. vs. Assistant Director of
Consolidation and Ors. reported in (1996)
2 SCC 273.

(ii) The second judgment passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been
relied by learned Standing Counsel is in the
case of Sheo Nand And Others versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
Allahabad and others reported in 2000 (3)
SCC 103.

13. It is further submitted that the
judgment in the case of Sheo Nand (supra)
given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
referring to the Section 48 of the Act, 1953,
when explanation-III was not added to the
same.

(iii) Lastly, the learned Standing
Counsel has relied upon paragraph 15 of the
judgment in the case of Sri Jagdamba
Prasad (Dead) (Supra), which has been
relied by learned counsel for the petitioners
also.

14. The court has asked the learned
counsel for petitioners that except that legal
submission any other submission if he
wanted to make on the merits of the case,
learned counsel for petitioner has replied
that he is confining his submission only to
the power of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation as per Section 48 of the Act,
1953, except that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation had not considered the
agreement entered into between the parties
for division of shares.

15. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and going through the record of
the case, it is an admitted case between the
parties that they are descendents of Puraithe original tenure holder and the dispute is
with regard to the Khata No. 23 situated at
Village Danpur, Tanda, District Faizabad.
The controversy involved in the present
petition which is to be adjudicated by this
Court is whether under Section 48, the
Deputy Director of Consolidation is
empowered
to
pass
an
order
by
appreciating the evidence and substituting
the findings in the order passed by the
Consolidation Officer. For that Section 48
alongwith
explanation
III
is
quoted
hereinbelow:-
5 All. Raj Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad & Ors.
2491

"48. Revision and reference. - (1)
The Director of Consolidation may call for
and examine the record of any case decided
or proceedings taken by any subordinate
authority for the purpose of satisfying
himself as to the regularity of the
proceedings; or as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order [other
than an interlocutory order] passed by such
authority in the case or proceedings, and
may, after allowing the parties concerned
an opportunity of being heard, make such
order in the case or proceedings as he
thinks fit.

(2) Powers under sub-section (1)
may be exercised by the Director of
Consolidation also on a reference under
sub-section (3).

(3) Any authority subordinate to
the Director of Consolidation may, after
allowing
the
parties
concerned
an
opportunity of being heard, refer the record
of any case or proceedings to the Director
of Consolidation for action under subsection (1)].

.......[Explanation (III). - The
power under this section to examine the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
order includes the power to examine any
finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by
any subordinate authority, and also
includes the power to re- appreciate any
oral or documentary evidence"

16. Explanation (III) has come into
force by U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002 w.e.f.
10.11.1983 whereby the Director/Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
has
been
empowered to re-appreciate any oral or
documentary evidence but prior to that the
such
power
was
not
with
the
Director/Deputy Director of Consolidation
but in the light of the judgment cited by
learned Standing Counsel in the case of
Sheo Nand (supra) wherein it has been held
that Deputy Director of Consolidation
would have full power under Section 48 to
re-appreciate or reevaluate the evidence on
record. The said finding was given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court when explanationIII was not added to the Section 48.

17. For proper adjudication of the
controversy
involved
in
the
present
petition, it is apt to reproduce the relevant
paras relied by learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as by the learned
Standing Counsel.

18. Firstly, the judgments relied by
learned counsel for the petitioners is being
reproduced hereunder:-

(a) relevant extract of para no. 3
of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ram Dular (supra) is
extracted hereinbelow:-

".....It is clear that the Director
had power to satisfy himself as to the
legality of the proceedings or as to the
correctness
of
the
proceedings
or
correctness, legality or propriety of any
order other than interlocutory order passed
by the authorities under the Act. But in
considering the correctness, legality or
propriety of the order or correctness of the
proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot
assume to itself the jurisdiction of the
original
authority
as
a
fact-finding
authority by appreciating for itself of those
facts de novo. It has to consider whether the
legally admissible evidence had not been
considered by the authorities in recording a
finding of fact or law or the conclusion
reached by it is based on no evidence, any
patent illegality or impropriety had been
committed or there was any procedural
irregularity which goes to the rest (sic root)
of the matter, had been committed in
recording the order or finding. ...."
2492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) para no. 6 of the judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Moti
(supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"6. It is well settled that Deputy
Director of Consolidation while exercising
the revisional power conferred by Section
48 of the Act can only interfere with the
finding recorded by Consolidation Officer
and Settlement Officer, if they are found to
be illegal, irregular, improper or correct,
but he has no jurisdiction to substitute his
own findings after re-appraisal of evidence.
Reference may be made to the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gaya
Deen and Ors. vs. Hanuman Prasad
reported in 2001 (92) RD 79 (SC) and that
of learned Single Judge of this Court in the
case of Jangi Lal v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Allahabad reported in 2000
(1) AWC 59."

(c) para nos. 13 and 14 of the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shri Jagdamba Prasad
(dead) supra is quoted hereinbelow:-

"13. Based on the rival factual
and legal contentions raised by the parties,
the following points would arise for our
consideration :

1.
Whether
the
Revisional
Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under
Section
48
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in
entertaining
additional
document
at
revision stage?

2. Whether the High Court was
correct in concurring with the findings of
the Revisional Authority?

3. 3. What order the appellants
are entitled to?

Answer to Point No. 1

14. Section 48 of the Act is pari
materia to Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. It is pertinent to mention
at this point the decision of this Court given
in the case of Sher Singh v. Joint Director
of Consolidation & Ors. [(1978) 3 SCC
172]. The relevant paragraphs read as
under:

"4. The principal question that
falls for our determination in this case is
whether in passing the impugned order, the
Joint Director of Consolidation, exceeded
the limits of the jurisdiction conferred on
him under Section 48 of the 1953 Act. For
a proper decision of this question, it is
necessary to advert to Section 48 of the
1953 Act as it stood on the relevant date
before its amendment by Act VIII of 1963:

"
Section
48
of
the
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act.- The
Director of Consolidation may call for the
record of any case if the Officer (other than
the Arbitrator) by whom the case was
decided appears to have exercised a
jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to
have failed to exercise jurisdiction so
vested, or to have acted in the exercise of
his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial
irregularity and may pass such orders in
the case as it thinks fit."of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act.- The
Director of Consolidation may call for the
record of any case if the Officer (other than
the Arbitrator) by whom the case was
decided appears to have exercised a
jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to
have failed to exercise jurisdiction so
vested, or to have acted in the exercise of
his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial
irregularity and may pass such orders in
the case as it thinks fit."

5. As the above section is pari
materia with Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, it will be profitable to
ascertain the scope of the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court. It is now
well-settled that the revisional jurisdiction
of the High Court is confined to cases of
illegal or irregular exercise or non-exercise
or illegal assumption of the jurisdiction by
5 All. Raj Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad & Ors.
2493
the subordinate courts. If a subordinate
court is found to possess the jurisdiction to
decide a matter, it cannot be said to exercise
it illegally or with material irregularity
even if it decides the matter wrongly. In
other words, it is not open to the High Court
while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
to correct errors of fact howsoever gross or
even errors of law unless the errors have
relation to the jurisdiction of the court to try
the dispute itself."

19. Now, the judgments on which
reliance has been placed by learned
Standing Counsel are being quoted:-

(a) Para no. 6 of the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Preetam Singh (dead) (supra) is
quoted:-

"When the matter was in revision
before
the
Assistant
director
(Consolidation), he had the entire matter
before him and his jurisdiction was
unfettered. While in seisin of the matter in
his revisional jurisdiction, he was in
complete control and in position to test the
correctness of the order made by the
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation)
effecting remand. In other words, in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction the
Assistant Director (Consolidation) could
examine the finding recorded by the
Settlement Officer as to the abandonment of
the land in dispute by those tenants who had
been recorded at the crucial time in the
Khasra of 1359 Fasli. That power as a
superior court the Assistant Director
(Consolidation) had, even if the remand
order of the Settlement Officer had not been
specifically put to challenge in separate
and
independent
proceedings.
It
is
noteworthy that the Court of the Assistant
Director (Consolidation) is a court of
revisional jurisdiction otherwise having
suo moto power to correct any order of the
subordinate officer. In this situation the
Assistant Director (Consolidation) should
not have felt fettered in doing complete
justice between the parties when the entire
matter was before him. The war of
legalistics fought in the High Court was of
no material benefit to the appellants. A
decision on merit covering the entire
controversy was due from the Assistant
Director (Consolidation)."
(emphasis supplied)

(b) para nos. 20 and 21 of the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sheo Nand (supra) is
quoted hereinbelow:-

"20. The section gives very wide
powers to the Deputy Director. It enables
him either suo motu on his own motion or
on the application of any person to consider
the propriety, legality, regularity and
correctness of all the proceedings held
under the Act and to pass appropriate
orders. These powers have been conferred
on the Deputy Director in the widest terms
so that the claims of the parties under the
Act may be effectively adjudicated upon
and determined so as to confer finality to
the rights of the parties and the revenue
records may be prepared accordingly.

21.
Normally,
the
Deputy
Director, in exercise of his powers, is not
expected to disturb the findings of fact
recorded concurrently by the Consolidation
Officer
and
the
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation), but where the findings are
perverse, in the sense that they are not
supported by the evidence brought on
record by the parties or that they are
against the weight of evidence, it would be
the duty of the Deputy Director to scrutinise
the whole case again so as to determine the
correctness, legality or propriety of the
orders
passed
by
the
authorities
2494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
subordinate to him. In a case, like the
present, where the entries in the revenue
records are fictitious or forged or they were
recorded in contravention of the statutory
provisions contained in the U.P. Land
Records Manual or other allied statutory
provisions, the Deputy Director would have
full power under Section 48 to reappraise
or re-evaluate the evidence-on-record so as
to finally determine the rights of the parties
by excluding forged and fictitious revenue
entries or entries not made in accordance
with law."
(emphasis supplied)

(c) para no. 15 of the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shri Jagdamba Prasad (supra) is
quoted hereunder:-

"According to the legal principle
laid down by this Court in the case
mentioned above, the power of the
Revisional Authority under Section 48 of
the Act only extends to ascertaining
whether the subordinate courts have
exceeded their jurisdiction in coming to the
conclusion. Therefore, if the Original and
Appellate Authorities are within their
jurisdiction,
the
Revisional
Authority
cannot exceed its jurisdiction to come to a
contrary conclusion by admitting new facts
either in the form of documents or
otherwise, to come to the conclusion.
Therefore, we answer point no. 1 in favour
of the appellants by holding that the
Revisional
Authority
exceeded
its
jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act by
admitting documents at revision stage and
altering the decision of the subordinate
courts."

20. In the light of the judgment cited
by learned Standing Counsel in the case of
Sheo Nand (supra) wherein it has been held
that Deputy Director of Consolidation
would have full power under Section 48 to
re-appreciate or re-evaluate the evidence on
record. The said finding was given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court when explanationIII was not added to the Section 48. The
para nos. 20 and 21 of the said judgment has
already been quoted in preceding paragraph
no. 19 (b) of the present judgment.

21. The judgment relied by learned
Standing Counsel in the case of Preetam
Singh (supra) wherein it has been held that
the Assistant Director of Consolidation
should not have fettered in doing complete
justice between the parties when the entire
matter was before him. The relevant para
no. 6 of the said judgment has already been
quoted in the preceding paragraph no. 19
(a) of the present judgment.

22. As far as the judgments cited by
learned counsel for the petitioners are
concerned,
thereafter
in
subsequent
judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held
that
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation has unfettered power in
doing complete justice between the parties,
as mentioned above.

23. Paragraph nos. 13 & 14 of the
judgment in the case of Jagdamba Prasad
(Dead) (supra), relied by learned counsel
for the petitioners where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has made reference of the
judgment in the case of Sher Singh Vs.
Joint Director of Consolidation and
others reported in 1978 (3) SCC 172,
wherein the power/jurisdiction of Deputy
Director of Consolidation was confined to
cases of illegal or irregular exercise or non
exercise
or
illegal
assumption
of
jurisdiction but para no. 15 of the same
judgment which has been relied by learned
Standing Counsel has clarified the earlier
settled position of law. The relevant extract
of the said judgment has already been
5 All. Bhartia Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran Vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors.
2495
quoted in the preceding paragraph no. 18
(c) of this judgment.

24. In the judgment of Shri Jagdamba
Prasad (Dead) supra, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has distinguished the earlier settled
position of law by giving jurisdiction to the
revisional authority to arrive at contrary
conclusion on the same evidence but has
held that revisional authority cannot exceed
its jurisdiction to come to a contrary
conclusion by admitting new facts either in
the form of document or otherwise to come
to conclusion and it is not the case of the
petitioners that the revisional Court in the
revision had admitted any new fact either in
the form of document or otherwise so the
said judgment is not of any help to the
petitioner.

25. The submission of learned counsel
for the petitioners that the compromise was
not considered by the revisional Court, the
said submission was replied by the learned
counsel for the respondents that there was
no agreement /compromise between the
petitioners and the respondents. The
compromise which was relied by the
petitioners was in between Baburam and
Ram Narain- the real brothers and the
decedents of the family of Horilal at the
time of suit between the Baburam and Ram
Narain in the year 1883 A.D. when
Baburam and Ram Narain sought partition
of the certain groves in the Court of learned
Munsif and it was the partition between two
real brothers i.e. decedents of the Horilal
i.e. the family of the petitioners and not
between the family of Horilal and Sheo
Charan and this finding in the order of
Consolidation Officer is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.

26. The reading of all the judgments
relied by learned Standing Counsel in the
cases of Preetam Singh (dead) (supra),
Sheo Nand (supra) and the judgment in
the case of Shri Jagdamba Prasad
(Dead) (supra) (which has been relied
by both the counsels), clarified the
position that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation can decide the matter
after appreciating the evidence to do
complete justice to the parties.

27. From the aforesaid, the
position which emerges out is that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation is
having jurisdiction to arrive at a
different conclusion on the same
evidence but the revisional authority
cannot exceed its jurisdiction by
admitting new facts either in the form
of document or otherwise so the
paragraph nos. 13 & 14 of the judgment
in the case of Shri Jagdamba Prasad
(Dead) (supra) is not of any help to the
petitioner in the light of paragraph 15
of the same judgment, as the revisional
court in the said case had admitted new
and fresh evidence.

28. In view of the facts, circumstances
and discussion made hereinabove, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2495
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act No. 8 of 2020

Bhartia Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran
 ...Appellant
Versus
Neeraj Sharma & Ors. ...Respondents