# Sanjay Kumar v. Santosh Kumar Srivastava

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 1366
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-02
- **Case number:** Contempt Appeal (D) No. 2 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-v-santosh-kumar-srivastava-49125
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Sri Sameer Sharma
(Senior Adv.)

Contempt Appeal-Challenge maintainability of
the
Appeal-the
contempt
court
issued
a
direction in-to revisit its order and take decisionin case, no decision is taken by the Board-Court
to proceed against the officers concerned-
contempt court has held the officers to be
totally in contempt. Therefore, the appeal would
be maintainable -but the impugned order
contains a directions for revisit and pass a fresh
order-which could not have been issued.
Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
house at the time of occurrence but their
testimony is not found liable as discussed
above.

19. There is no doubt that antemortem
injury shown in the postmortem report
could be inflicted by fire arms but
prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that fire arm was used by accused -
appellant. The testimony of PW-6 is not
wholly reliable and not corroborated by any
other evidence. The learned Trial Court has
convicted the appellant by placing reliance
on the testimony of alleged eye witnesses
who are family members of the deceased
but their evidence is not found reliable.

20. In our considered view, as
discussed above, their testimony is not
found reliable and prosecution have failed
to prove that the offence is committed by
accused - appellant. It is also pertinent to
mention that the FIR of this occurrence as
alleged is exaggerated because in the FIR,
it is mentioned that there were three
persons who had indiscriminately fired at
the deceased. While during the course of
investigation the evidence was found only
against the appellant as per Investigating
Officer and only the appellant was chargesheeted. This fact goes to show that there is
exaggerated version of the incident in the
FIR and the informant has not seen the
occurrence because in his testimony as
PW-1, he has admitted this fact that he had
not seen the incident and he was not
present at the house when the incident took
place. It is mentioned in the FIR that there
were three unknown persons who had
committed offence and the informant did
not know their names. No identification
parade was done.

21. The accused can be convicted on the
basis of sole testimony of eye witness but his
testimony should be wholly reliable. In our
case, no testimony of any alleged eye witness
is found reliable by us and we are of the
considered opinion that the accused - appellant
has wrongly been convicted and sentenced by
the learned Court below as he was entitled to
be acquitted on the basis of doubt created by
the prosecution evidence, hence, we upturn the
impugned judgment and the accused-appellant
is entitled to be given benefit of doubt as
prosecution has failed to prove the case against
him beyond reasonable doubt.

22. Appeal is liable to be allowed and is,
accordingly, allowed. The conviction and
sentence of the accused- appellant is set aside.
He is acquitted of the charge framed against
him. The amount of fine be refunded to the
appellant, if already deposited. The appellant
be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other
cases.

23. The record and proceedings be sent
back to the Trial Court forthwith.

24. We direct the High Court Legal
Service Committee to disburse a sum of
Rs.15,000/- to Sri Uttar Kumar Goswami,
learned Amicus Curiae for his well
assistance.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1366
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Contempt Appeal (D) No. 2 of 2022

Sanjay Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Santosh Kumar Srivastava ...Respondent
1 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Santosh Kumar Srivastava
1367
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Sri Sameer Sharma
(Senior Adv.)

Contempt Appeal-Challenge maintainability of
the
Appeal-the
contempt
court
issued
a
direction in-to revisit its order and take decisionin case, no decision is taken by the Board-Court
to proceed against the officers concerned-
contempt court has held the officers to be
totally in contempt. Therefore, the appeal would
be maintainable -but the impugned order
contains a directions for revisit and pass a fresh
order-which could not have been issued.
Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd.Vs
Chunilal Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399

2. S.M.A. Abdi & anr. Vs Private Secretary
Brotherhood & anr., 2009 (4) UPLBEC 3106

3. Tarun Kumar Agrawal Vs The Executive
Engineer U.P. Avas Neutral Citation No. -
2022:AHC:195807-DB 2 Evam Vikas Parishad
Meerut 2013 (101 ALR 46)

4. Subhawati Devi Vs R.K. Singh & ors. (Special
Appeal No. 553 of 2003 decided on 19.03.2004)

5. Modi Telefibres Ltd. & ors. Vs Sujit Kumar
Choudhary & ors. (2005) 7 SCC 40

6. Purshotam Dass Goel Vs Justice B.S. Dhillon,
1978 (2) SCC 370

7. State of Maharashtra Vs Mahboob S. Allibhoy,
(1996) 4 SCC 411

8. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders
Welfare Assc. (2) Vs S.C. Sekar & ors., (2009) 2
SCC 784

9. ECL Finance Ltd. Vs Harikishan Shankarji
Gudipati & ors., (2018) 13 SCC 142
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Sameer
Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel

Submissions :-

2. Learned counsel for the respondent
has raised a preliminary objection of
maintainability of the present appeal on the
ground that the order impugned is not an
order, punishing the appellant for contempt,
therefore, the appeal under Section 19 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not
maintainable in view of law settled by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal
Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399 (Paragraph 11).
He also relied upon the two Division Bench
judgement of this Court in S.M.A. Abdi
and
another
vs.
Private
Secretary
Brotherhood and another, 2009 (4)
UPLBEC
3106
and
Tarun
Kumar
Agrawal vs. The Executive Engineer U.P.
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Meerut 2013
(101 ALR 46. He also supports the
impugned order on merit.

3. Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel
for the appellant submits that the appeal is
maintainable and he relied upon a Division
Bench
judgement
of
this
Court
in
Subhawati Devi vs. R.K. Singh and
others (Special Appeal No. 553 of 2003
decided on 19.03.2004) and in view of law
laid down in Modi Telefibres Ltd. and
Ors. vs. Sujit Kumar Choudhary and
Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 40 (Paragraph 4 and
5). He submits that the impugned order
records of finding. He submits that once an
order in compliance to the order of the writ
1368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court has been passed it was not open for
the competent court to direct the appellant
to revisit the order. Hence, on merit the
impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Brief facts of the present case are
that in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.30057
of 2016 (Santosh Kumar Srivastava vs.
State of U.P. and others) was filed by the
respondent herein which was allowed by
the
writ
court
by
judgement
dated
04.12.2017, directing as under :-

"In view of the above, we direct the
respondents to consider the petitioner for
grant of promotion on the post of
Assistant Regional Manager (Technical)
w.e.f. 09.06.2016 the date on which the
persons junior to him have been promoted
on the said post ignoring the entry dated
30.03.2012 in accordance with law within a
period of three months and to accord all
monitory benefits admissible as such to the
petitioner."

5. Thereafter, Managing Director of the
U.P. Transport Corporation passed an order
dated 06.11.2018 concluding as under :-

"मा० उच्च न्यायालय के ग्रनणिय ग्रदनाोंक
04.12.2017 के अनुपालन में इनके प्रकरण पर
ियन सग्रमग्रत की ह ने वाली आगामी बैठक में
ग्रविार ग्रकया जाना था, ग्रकन्तु भ्रष्टािार ग्रनर िक
दल द्वारा ग्रदनाोंक 01.12.2017 क पुग्रलस अग्रभरक्षा
में भ्रष्टािार के आर प में ग्रनरूद्ध ग्रकये जाने सोंबोंिी
गम्भीर आर प ों के सोंबोंि में अनुशासग्रनक कायिवाही
वतिमान में लखम्बत है।

ग्रवगत में प्र न्नग्रत हेतु ग्रवभागीय ियन सग्रमग्रत
की बैठक ग्रदनाोंक 13.04.2018 में इनका प्रकरण
प्र न्नग्रत पर ग्रविार हेतु प्रस्तुत ग्रकया गया था ग्रजसमें
इनके ग्रवरूद्ध ग्रदनाोंक 04.08.2014 के पूवि की
अनुशासग्रनक कायिवाग्रहय ों के प्रकरण ों में ग्रदये गये
दण्ड क ियन सग्रमग्रत द्वारा ग्रविार में नहीों ग्रलया
गया। ग्रकन्तु इनके ग्रवरूद्ध अनुशासग्रनक कायिवाही
गग्रतशील ह ने के दृग्रष्टगत ियन सग्रमग्रत द्वारा
सम्यक् ग्रविार परान्त इनकी प्र न्नग्रत की सोंस्तुग्रत
बि ग्रलफाफे में रिे जाने का ग्रनणिय ग्रलया गया।
आगामी ग्रवभागीय ियन सग्रमग्रत की बैठक में इनके
द्वारा पाररत प्रग्रतकूल प्रग्रवग्रष्ट ग्रदनाोंक 30.03.2012
क Washed-off मानकर अन्य ग्रववरण ों सग्रहत पुनः
प्र न्नग्रत के सोंबोंि में ग्रविार हेतु रिा जायेगा, ग्रजस
पर ियन सग्रमग्रत द्वारा ग्रनयमानुसार ग्रनणिय ग्रलया
जायेगा।

तद्नुसार मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद के
ग्रनणिय ग्रदनाोंक 04.12.2017 के अनुपालन में यािी
श्री सोंत ष कुमार श्रीवास्तव, सीग्रनयर फ रमैन िेड1 द्वारा प्रस्तुत पत्यावेदन ग्रदनाोंक 07.02.2018 एवों
08.10.2018 का अखन्तम रूप से ग्रनस्तारण ग्रकया
जाता है।"

6. Thereafter, the respondent herein
filed the aforesaid Contempt Application
(Civil) No.5916 of 2018 in which the
impugned order dated 14.09.2022 has been
passed, as under : -

"On 07.09.2022, time was granted to
the counsel representing the opposite party
to go through the matter. Today, when the
case was taken up, further time was sought
by the counsel for the opposite party.

This Court finds that the officers are
totally in contempt of the order passed by
the writ Court dated 04.12.2017 as the
Court had required to consider grant of
promotion to the applicant with effect
from 09.06.2016, the date on which the
persons junior to him were promoted.

According to counsel appearing for
the opposite party, certain irregularities
were committed by the applicant in the year
2017 and in view of Government Order, the
benefit could not be extended though the
D.P.C. had recommended for promotion of
the applicant.

This Court finds that the decision is in
totally in the teeth of the order passed by
the writ Court on 04.12.2017.
1 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Santosh Kumar Srivastava
1369

As a last opportunity, three weeks'
further time is granted to the opposite party
to revisit its order and take decision
complying the order dated 04.12.2017.

List this matter on 12th October, 2022.

In case no decision is taken by the
Board till that date, the Court will be
compelled to proceed against the officers
concerned."

7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid
quoted
order
dated
14.09.2022,
the
opposite party / appellant herein has filed
the present appeal under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act, 1971")

Discussion and Finding:-

8. The submission made by learned
counsel for the parties in the afore-noted
appeal raises the following questions :

(a) Whether under the facts and
circumstances of the case, the present
appeal under Section 19 of the 1971 Act is
maintainable?

(b) Whether under the facts and
circumstances, the impugned order is
valid?

Question (a)

9. Section 19(1) of the Act, 1971
provides that an appeal shall lie as of right
from any order or decision of High Court in
the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt--

(a) where the order or decision is that
of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less
than two Judges of the Court;

(b) where the order or decision is that
of a Bench, to the Supreme Court; Provided
that where the order or decision is that of
the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in
any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to
the Supreme Court.

10. In Purshotam Dass Goel vs.
Justice B.S. Dhillon, 1978 (2) SCC 370
(Para 3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
as under :-

"The contempt proceeding is initiated
under Section 17 by issuance of a notice."
Thereafter, there may be many interlocutory
orders passed in the said proceedings by
the High Court. It could not be the
intention of the legislature to provide for an
appeal to this Court as a matter of right
from each and every such order made by
the Court. The order or the decision must
be such that it decides some bone of
contention raised before the High Court
affecting the right of the party aggrieved. .
.. . . . . . ."

11. In State of Maharashtra vs.
Mahboob S. Allibhoy, (1996) 4 SCC 411
(Para 4), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
as under :-

"As sub-section (1) of Section 19
provides that an appeal shall lie as of right
from any order, an impression is created
that an appeal has been provided under the
said sub-section against any order passed
by the High Court while exercising the
jurisdiction of contempt proceedings. The
words 'any order' has to be read with the
expression 'decision' used in said subsection which the High Court passes in
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt. 'Any order' is not independent
of the expression 'decision'. They have
been put in an alternative form saying
'order' or 'decision'. In either case, it must
be in the nature of punishment for
contempt. If the expression 'any order' is
1370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
read independently of the 'decision' then an
appeal shall lie under sub-section (1) of
Section 19 even against any interlocutory
order passed in a proceeding for contempt
by the High Court which shall lead to a
ridiculous result."

12. In the case of Midnapore
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal
Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399 (Para 11), the
legal position has been summarized as
under :-

(i) An appeal under section 19 is
maintainable only against an order or
decision of the High Court passed in
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt, that is, an order imposing
punishment for contempt.

(ii) Neither an order declining to
initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an
order initiating proceedings for contempt
nor an order dropping the proceedings for
contempt nor an order acquitting or
exonerating the contemnor, is appealable
under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special
circumstances, they may be open to
challenge under Article 136 of the
Constitution.

(iii). In a proceeding for contempt, the
High Court can decide whether any
contempt of court has been committed, and
if so, what should be the punishment and
matters incidental thereto. In such a
proceeding, it is not appropriate to
adjudicate or decide any issue relating to
the merits of the dispute between the
parties.

(iv). Any direction issued or decision
made by the High Court on the merits of a
dispute between the parties, will not be in
the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for
contempt' and therefore, not appealable
under section 19 of CC Act. The only
exception is where such direction or
decision is incidental to or inextricably
connected with the order punishing for
contempt, in which event the appeal under
Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass
the incidental or inextricably connected
directions.

(v). If the High Court, for whatsoever
reason, decides an issue or makes any
direction, relating to the merits of the
dispute between the parties, in a contempt
proceedings, the aggrieved person is not
without remedy. Such an order is open to
challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the
order was of a learned Single Judge and
there is a provision for an intra-court
appeal), or by seeking special leave to
appeal
under
Article
136
of
the
Constitution of India (in other cases).

13. In the case of Tamilnad
Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare
Association (2) vs. S.C. Sekar and others,
(2009) 2 SCC 784 (Para 39 to 40), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-

"39. It may a different matter, if the
court while passing an order decided some
disputes raised before it by the contemnor
asking it to drop the proceedings on one
ground or the other. Thus, in a given
situation, an appeal would be maintainable
even against a notice to show cause. Here
even such a notice has not been issued and
thus the question of satisfying the court by
showing cause that the contemnors /
respondents
had
not
committed
any
contempt did not arise. Allegations had not
been made against the Chairman of the
meeting. The contempt proceedings had
been initiated only against the Managing
Director of the Bank.

40. Although we need not go into the
larger question of maintainability of the
appeal in view of the fact that the matter
has been referred to the Three Judge Bench
1 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Santosh Kumar Srivastava
1371
in Dharam Singh v. Gulzari Lal and others
(SLP (Civil) No. 18852 of 2005), but prima
facie, in view of the decision of this Court
in Purshottam Das (supra) there cannot be
any doubt that in a situation where order
has been passed adverse to the interest of
the alleged contemnor an appeal would be
maintainable
particularly
where
a
judgment has been passed by a court
which is beyond its jurisdiction."

14. In ECL Finance Limited vs.
Harikishan Shankarji Gudipati and
others, (2018) 13 SCC 142, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reiterated the afore-noted
principles of law on the question of
maintainability of appeal under Section 19
of the Act, 1971, as laid down in its earlier
decisions in Tamilnad Mercantile Bank
Shareholdrs Welfare Association (2)
(supra) and Midnapore Peoples' Coop.
Bank Ltd. (supra).

15. Thus, the legal position on the
point of maintainability of an appeal
under Section 19 of the Act, 1971, as per
law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court; may
be summarized as under :-

(i) An appeal under section 19 is
maintainable only against an order or
decision of the High Court passed in
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt, that is, an order imposing
punishment for contempt

(ii)Neither an order declining to
initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an
order initiating proceedings for contempt
nor an order dropping the proceedings for
contempt nor an order acquitting or
exonerating the contemnor, is appealable
under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. In special circumstances, they
may be open to challenge under Article 136
of the Constitution.

(iii). In a proceeding for contempt, the
High Court can decide whether any
contempt of court has been committed, and
if so, what should be the punishment and
matters incidental thereto. In such a
proceeding, it is not appropriate to
adjudicate or decide any issue relating to
the merits of the dispute between the
parties.

(iv). Any direction issued or decision
made by the High Court on the merits of a
dispute between the parties, will not be in
the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for
contempt' and therefore, not appealable
under section 19 of Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. The only exception is where
such direction or decision is incidental to
or inextricably connected with the order
punishing for contempt, in which event
the appeal under Section 19 of the Act,
can also encompass the incidental or
inextricably connected directions. The
order or decision must be such that it
decides some bone of contention raised
before the High Court affecting the right
of the party aggrieved.

(v). If the High Court, for whatsoever
reason, decides an issue or makes any
direction, relating to the merits of the
dispute between the parties, in a contempt
proceedings, the aggrieved person is not
without remedy. Such an order is open to
challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the
order was of a learned Single Judge and
there is a provision for an intra-court
appeal), or by seeking special leave to
appeal
under
Article
136
of
the
Constitution of India (in other cases).

(vi) If the court while passing an order
decided some disputes raised before it by
the contemnor asking it to drop the
proceedings on one ground or the other,
then, in a given situation, an appeal would
be maintainable even against a notice to
show cause.
1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(vii) There cannot be any doubt that in
a situation where order has been passed
adverse to the interest of the alleged
contemnor,
an
appeal
would
be
maintainable
particularly
where
a
judgment has been passed by a court
which is beyond its jurisdiction.

(viii) The exercise of jurisdiction to
punish for contempt commences with the
initiation of a proceeding for contempt and
if the order is passed not discharging the
rule issued in contempt proceedings, it
would be an order or decision in exercise of
its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
Against such order, appeal would be
maintainable."

16. Having summarized the settled
legal
position
on
the
question
of
maintainability of appeal under Section 19
of the Act, 1971, we now proceed to
examine
the
impugned
order
dated
14.09.2022.

17. We have perused the impugned
order and we find that the court below has
recorded a finding in the second paragraph
of the order that the Officer is totally in
contempt of the order passed by the writ
court dated 04.12.2017. In the fourth
paragraph of the impugned order, the
contempt court has again recorded a
finding that without commenting upon the
decision dated 06.11.2018 whereby the
representation of the respondent was
disposed of by the Managing Director; the
Contempt court observed such decision to
be totally in the teach of the order passed
by
the
writ
court
on
04.12.2017.
Thereafter, the contempt court has issued a
direction in fifth paragraph of the
impugned order that last opportunity is
granted to the opposite party to revisit
its order and take decision. Thereafter, in
the last paragraph, the contempt court
observed that in case, no decision is taken
by the Board till that date, the Court will be
compelled to proceed against the officers
concerned.

18. The findings recorded, direction
issued and the observation made in the
order dated 14.09.2022 as noted above,
leaves no manner of doubt that the
contempt court has held the officers to be
totally in contempt. Therefore, the appeal
would be maintainable in view of law
summarized in para 15 (i) and (iii) above.

19. That apart, the Managing Director
had taken a decision dated 06.11.2018
which could have been challenged by the
respondent / contempt applicant before
appropriate forum. We have specifically
asked learned counsel for the respondent to
apprise us as to whether the order dated
06.11.2018 passed by Managing Director
has been challenged by the respondent? and
he replied that it has not been challenged as
yet and the respondent proposes to
challenge it by filing a writ petition or
before appropriate forum.

20. Under these circumstances, the
contempt court traveled beyond its power
to issue directions to the authorities
concerned to revisit its order and to take a
decision. Hence, the appeal is maintainable
in view of the settled legal position
summarized above.

21. In view of discussion made above,
we reject the preliminary objection
raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent and we hold that present
appeal under Section 19 of the Act, 1971,
is maintainable.

22. At this stage, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the respondent
1 All. Smt. Meena Devi Vs. Babu Ram & Ors.
1373
states that the respondent proposes to
challenge the order dated 06.11.2018 by
filing a writ petition and therefore, liberty
may be granted to him to file a writ
petition.

23. In our view, if the respondent is
aggrieved with the order dated 06.11.2018
passed by the Managing Director, it is well
within his rights to challenge that order by
filing writ petition or to challenge it before
appropriate forum.

24. So for as the impugned order is
concerned, it would be suffice to observe
that in the impugned interlocutory order,
the findings have been recorded that the
Officers are totally in contempt. Therefore,
the impugned order is unsustainable.

25. That apart, the impugned order
contains a directions for revisit and pass a
fresh order, which in our humble view
could not have been issued. Therefore, the
impugned order dated 14.09.2022 cannot
be sustained.

26. For all the reasons aforestated, the
impugned order dated 14.09.2022 is set
aside.

27. The contempt court may proceed
in accordance with law. The contempt
Application (Civil) No. 5916 of 2018 shall
be listed before the contempt court in
second week of January, 2023.

28. The appeal is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1373
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2022

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Civil Revision No. 341 of 2016

Smt. Meena Devi ...Revisionist
Versus
Babu Ram & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Murli Dhar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Raghuvansh Misra, Sri Sachida Nand Tiwari

Civil Law - Impleadment-Indian Trust ActSection
74-Impugned
order-impleadment
allowed-applicant impleaded as defendants-Suit
filed u/s 74 of the Act-certain questions to be
considered only after impleadment is allowed.

Revision dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Balasaheb Vs Venkat, (2006) SCC 530

2. Amit Kumar Vs Farida, AIR 2005, SC 2209

3. Anil Kumar Vs Shiv Nath (1995), 3 SCC 147

4. S.T.C. Vs Chittoor Co-operative, AIR 1990
Del, 142

5. Ratan Muni College Vs Additinal Civil Judge,
AIR 1995 Allahabad 7

6. Udit Vs Additional Member Board of Revene
AIR 1963, SC, 786

7. Kasturi Vs Iyyamperumal, AIR (2005) 6 SSC
733

8. Basanligappa Vs Nagamma, AIR 1969 Mys
313

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chanbdra
Sharma, J.)

1. This civil revision has been
instituted against the order dated 15.9.2016
passed by Additional District & Sessions