# Ram Gopal Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 692
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No 3467 of 2025
- **Bench:** Abdul Shahid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-gopal-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54795
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in this application. The applicant cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. He
cannot deny the paternity of the children and at the same time he refuses to undergo the DNA test.
If he is doubting the paternity the only way to prove his case is by the DNA testing. Moreover, the
applicant cannot equate the DNA test with the other tests like Narco test which needs a prior
consent. Explanation 53 of Cr.P.C. now makes it abundantly clear "examination" would include
DNA parentage."

22. In the Court's view, the present case involves peculiar facts and circumstances in which
a father i.e. revisionist has every right to know whether he is biological father of opposite party
no.2 or not. Similarly, a daughter i.e. opposite party no.2 also has every right to know who is her
biological father because if this is not known, it will continue to trouble both of them throughout
their lives and they will also not be able to lead their lives properly in society.

23. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 1st March, 2025 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 575 of 2019 (Khusbu Vs.
Jawahir Lal Jaiswal) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Pannuganj, DistrictSonbhadra is set aside.

24. After getting the D.N.A. testing of revisionist and opposite party no.2 undertaken, the
trial court is directed to consider and decide Criminal Misc. Case No. 575 of 2019 (Khusbu Vs.
Jawahir Lal Jaiswal) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Pannuganj, District-Sonbhadra
afresh on merits, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties, preferably within three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of
the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

25. The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations and directions
made above.

26. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 692
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No 3467 of 2025

Ram Gopal ....Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
3 All. Ram Gopal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
693
Matter pertains to whether a criminal revision are maintainable against an award passed by National Lok
Adalat in criminal proceedings, particularly when such award partakes the character of a consensual
settlement having the status of a decree of a civil court; and whether the legality and validity of such Lok
Adalat award can be assailed only through the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226/227 of
Constitution of India.

Headnotes
Limitation Act, 1963 - s.5, 14 - Exclusion of period - Lok Adalat Award - Nature and scope -
Function purely conciliatory - Lack of adjudicatory authority - The instant criminal revision arose
out of proceedings initiated against an award dated 11.12.2021 passed by National Lok Adalat
presided over by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, in Criminal Case No. 117 of 2019 arising
from NCR No. 155 of 2015 - Aggrieved by the said Lok Adalat award, the revisionist initially
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024 before Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (E.C. Act), Budaun, which came to be dismissed on 15.02.2025 - Thereafter, the revisionist
invoked the revisional jurisdiction of High Court challenging the legality and maintainability of
proceedings arising from the Lok Adalat award - During consideration of matter, the High Court
examined the legal status of award passed by Lok Adalat, the nature and scope of their
jurisdiction, and the settled position of law governing the mode of challenge against such award,
particularly with reference to maintainability of criminal appellate or revisional remedies vis-àvis constitutional remedies under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.

Held: The question of limitation shall be considered in accordance with s. 5 r/w s. 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 -
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the revisionist to avail
appropriate remedy before the appropriate court. [Paras 7, 8] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Shashwat Agrawal v. State of U.P. and another, 2024:AHC: 159141; State of Punjab and another v. Jalour
Singh and others, AIR 2008 (2) SCC 660; Bharvagi Construction v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others,
AIR 2017 SC 4428 - referred to

List of Acts
Limitation Act, 1963

List of Keywords
Criminal revision; National Lok Adalat; Chief Judicial Magistrate; Criminal appeal; Dismissal of appeal;
Revisional jurisdiction; Maintainability; Appropriate remedy; Award of Lok Adalat; Extension of prescribed
period; Decree of a Civil Court; Writ petition under Articles 226/ 227 of Constitution of India; Presiding Officer;
Defect of jurisdiction; Dismissed as withdrawn of criminal revision.

Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision No. - 3467 of 2025

From Judgment and Award dated 11.12.2021 passed in the National Lok Adalat by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Budaun, in Criminal Case No. 117 of 2019.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Revisionist(s):
Devika Kapoor, Pranjal Singh

Advs. for the Opposite Party(s):
G.A., Pravin Kumar, Sudhir Kumar
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned
counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

2. The present criminal revision has been initiated on the basis of an award dated
11.12.2021 passed in the National Lok Adalat by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, in
Criminal Case No. 117 of 2019 (State of U.P. versus Sudhir Kumar and others), arising out of NCR
No. 155 of 2015. The said award was challenged by way of Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024 (Ram
Gopal versus State of U.P. and others), which was decided by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Budaun, vide order dated 15.02.2025, and the same was
dismissed.

3. Thus, the genesis of the present criminal revision lies in the award dated 11.12.2021
passed by the National Lok Adalat.

4. This Court in Shashwat Agrawal Versus State of U.P. and another, 2024:AHC:
159141, has held as under:

 "7. .....The moment, the same officer, who was holding the post of Magistrate takes up the
matter as a Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat seizes the power of the Magistrate and in Lok
Adalat, the Presiding Officer's role is only that of a conciliator, who can facilitate the parties to
arrive at a compromise and if the parties disagreed and did not settle their dispute, then the Lok
Adalat is deprived of any powers of a Magistrate to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

 8. It is settled view that even if a criminal proceeding has been referred to the Lok Adalat,
the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be treated as a decree of a civil court and a decree of
civil court cannot impose any penalty.

 14. As has been held by the Apex Court in Jalour Singh (supra) against an award passed
by the Lok Adalat. The same can be challenged only by way of a petition under Section 226 or 227
of the Constitution of India and not otherwise and the aforesaid views have already been affirmed
in Bharvagi Construction (supra) by the Apex Court. In view thereof, the instant application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the award of Lok Adalat is not maintainable. Therefore, this
Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot interfere with the Award
passed by the Lok Adalat, which is a decree passed by civil court, and is not amenbale to the
criminal jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

5. In the State of Punjab and another vs. Jalour Singh and others, AIR 2008 (2) SCC
660, three Judges Bench of the Apex Court has held as under:

 "8. It is evident from the said provisions that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or
judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines a
reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties at its instance, and put its
seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. When the Lok
3 All. Ram Gopal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
695
Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made and the case record
is returned to the court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with
law. No Lok Adalat has the power to "hear" parties to adjudicate cases as a court does. It
discusses the subject matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement. In
their conciliatory role, the Lok Adalats are guided by principles of justice, equity, fair play.When
the LSA Act refers to 'determination' by the Lok Adalat and 'award' by the Lok Adalat, the said
Act does not contemplate nor require an adjudicatory judicial determination, but a nonadjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement, arrived at by the parties, with
guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat. The 'award' of the Lok Adalat does not mean any
independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision making process. The making of the
award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise
agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the
signature and seal of the Lok Adalat.
 9. But we find that many sitting or retired Judges, while participating in Lok Adalats as
members, tend to conduct Lok Adalats like courts, by hearing parties, and imposing their views
as to what is just and equitable, on the parties. Sometimes they get carried away and proceed to
pass orders on merits, as in this case, even though there is no consensus or settlement. Such acts,
instead of fostering alternative dispute resolution through Lok Adalats, will drive the litigants
away from Lok Adalats. Lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the part of Judges and
constantly strive to function as conciliators. The endeavour and effort of the Lok Adalats should
be to guide and persuade the parties, with reference to principles of justice, equity and fair play to
compromise and settle the dispute by explaining the pros and cons, strength and weaknesses,
advantages and disadvantages of their respective claims.

 12. It is true that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived
at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok
Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if
it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to
challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under
Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no
compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer
to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or
approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of
the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not
arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of
the appeal on merits."

6. The aforesaid view has been further affirmed by the Apex Court in Bharvagi
Construction vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, AIR 2017 SC 4428, wherein the
Apex Court has held as under :

 "27. In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all
the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no
uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High
Court and that too on very limited grounds.

 28. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion
that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person(respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a
writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for
challenging the award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ Court to
decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and,
if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing."

7. The question of limitation shall be considered in accordance with Section 5 read with
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act are quoted
hereinbelow:

 "Section 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.-Any appeal or any
application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or
the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making
the application within such period. Explanation.?The fact that the appellant or the applicant was
misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the
prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.

 14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.-(1) In
computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been
prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of
appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the
same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or
other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

 (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the
applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of
first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded,
where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or
other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in
rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of subsection (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under
rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by
reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature."

8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the
revisionist to avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate court.

9. The certified copies filed along with the revision shall be returned to learned counsel for
the revisionist after retaining photocopies thereof on record.
----------
3 All. Kusum Mishra & Anr. Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.
697
(2026) 3 ILRA 697
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 610 of 2026

Kusum Mishra & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the first appellate court could not have examined the findings of fact recorded by learned trial court
while examining the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury, as the scope of
scrutiny by the appellate court is limited to examining whether the learned trial court's order suffers from
perversity, capriciousness, arbitrariness, mala fides or it has been passed in ignorance of settled principles
governing the grant of an injunction under Section XXXIX C.P.C; Whether the without passing any order
permitted filing of additional evidence :whether additional evidence can only be submitted in circumstances
permitted by Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227; The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order XXXIX &
XLI Rule 27- The plaintiffs have constructed a parapet which projects over a width of 3.6 feet
towards south, beyond the limits of the house allotted to the petitioner, whereas the petitioners
have got no right to raise any construction covering the land beyond the land allotted to the
petitioner no.1. Therefore, the plaintiffs have got no prima facie case. Demolition of construction
which covers an area beyond the area allotted to the plaintiff would not cause any legal injury to
the plaintiffs and, therefore, the balance of convenience also does not tilt in favour of the
plaintiffs- The provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. will not apply to filing documents before
the appellate Court while challenging the validity of an order of temporary injunction. Moreover,
no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiffs by filing of additional documents by the opposite
parties because the plaintiffs could not make out a prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss and injury and the application for temporary injunction was liable to be rejected
even on the basis of the pleadings and the documents filed by the plaintiffs themselves.

Held- The material adduced by the plaintiffs themselves prima facie establishes absence of a prima facie case
in their favour and, therefore the trial Court ought to have rejected the application for temporary injunction.
Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi and others: (2024) 11 SCC 351; Ramakant Ambalal
Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi: (2024) 11 SCC 351; Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC
727] and Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan [(2013) 9 SCC 221] ; Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v.
Harish Ambalal Choksi: (2024) 11 SCC 351;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908