# Sukhdev Kumar Chaubey v. Commissioner Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi, & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 249
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1441 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sukhdev-kumar-chaubey-v-commissioner-varanasi-mandal-varanasi-ors-49000
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 33, 34 & 35 - Mutation - Claim
on the basis of decree passed in a suit u/s
229-B - No appeal against decree filed -
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mutation proceeding - maintainability -
Phrase 'upon facts otherwise coming to
his knowledge' is used - Effect - Held, the
words and phrase 'upon facts otherwise
coming to his knowledge' is indication of
intended of litigation to cover all such
cases that may require mutation - A
declaratory
decree
of
a
competent
revenue court holding and declaring a
person to be title holder of a land falling in
a revenue village, would be such a case
and, therefore, in such circumstances, if
decree holder takes a plea before the
Tehsildar that he having been declared
owner in possession of the land, is entitled
for mutation. (Para 11 and 13)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

9 All. Sukhdev Kumar Chaubey Vs. Commissioner Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi & Ors.
249
under Section 12 of the Act which was filed
in the year 1976 after the final judgment of
the Deputy Director Consolidation which was
passed in the year 1970. Three Consolidation
Courts have rightly not permitted the
petitioner to get fresh inning opened for
adjudication of their claim on the merits in
the garb of the proceedings under Section 12
of the Act. It could only be entertained when
the matter relating to change and transfer
affecting any of the right or interest recorded
in the revised records published under SubSection (1) of Section 10 for which a cause of
action had not arisen when proceedings
under Sections 7 to 9 were started or were in
progress. This being not the situation, so far
the case in hand is concerned rather cause of
action having already arisen, to which
petitioner's predecessor having reacted had
filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the
Act has failed and thus filing of the fresh
objection under Section 12 of the Act by the
petitioners is clearly barred under Section 11A of the Act read with Section 12 (2) of the
Act. It is not to be repeated that by change of
law or if earlier judgment has been over
ruled, that do not give any cause of action for
re-adjudicating the claim on the merits and to
get earlier order reviewed as has been clearly
opined by the Apex Court in the decision
given in case of Shanti Devi (Supra). Thus
arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that as vendor has got Bhumidhari
rights in view of the subsequent declaration
of law petitioner's claim is to be accepted, on
the facts of present case of no help to them.
Other decisions also as cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioners on the fact and
reasoning given above have no application to
the case in hand."

10. Considering the provisions of
Section 9A, 11A and 12 of U.P.C.H. Act,
ratio of law laid down by which Court in
Aparbal Yadav (supra) as well as facts and
circumstances of the case ends of justice
requires that objection under Section
9A(2)of U.P.C.H. Act in respect to disputed
plot initiated at the instance of respondents
be adjudicated on merit, in which both
parties will have opportunity to contest
their claim on merit under the impugned
order, the same things has been done as
such no interference is required against the
impugned orders. Writ petition filed by
petitioners fails and is dismissed. No order
as to costs.

11. Since the matter is very old, it is
directed
that
Consolidation
Officer
Fatehpur, shall decide the objection under
Section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act after notice
and opportunity of hearing to both parties
on merit expeditiously preferably within six
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this Judgment.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 249
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 1441 of 2022

Sukhdev Kumar Chaubey ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi,
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Udai Chandani, Sri Anjani Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 33, 34 & 35 - Mutation - Claim
on the basis of decree passed in a suit u/s
229-B - No appeal against decree filed -
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mutation proceeding - maintainability -
Phrase 'upon facts otherwise coming to
his knowledge' is used - Effect - Held, the
words and phrase 'upon facts otherwise
coming to his knowledge' is indication of
intended of litigation to cover all such
cases that may require mutation - A
declaratory
decree
of
a
competent
revenue court holding and declaring a
person to be title holder of a land falling in
a revenue village, would be such a case
and, therefore, in such circumstances, if
decree holder takes a plea before the
Tehsildar that he having been declared
owner in possession of the land, is entitled
for mutation. (Para 11 and 13)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Parabhu Vs Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Allahabad; 1968 SCC OnLine All 398 : 1968 RD
195,
2. Satpal Singh & ors. Vs St. of Har. & ors.
decided by the Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

1. In view of office report dated
19.4.2022 service upon respondent nos. 4 and
5 is deemed sufficient.

2. Heard Udai Chandani learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P.N.Raj,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State.

3. By means of this writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challenged the order of the
Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil - Sadar, Varanasi
(Respondent no. 3) dated 18.01.2020,
whereby he has rejected the application of the
petitioner for mutation holding that on the
basis of decree of compromise or settlement
made by the competent court, mutation
proceedings cannot be initiated.

4. Petitioner's appeal against the order
dated 18.01.2020 has also come to be rejected
by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Dy.
Collector (Revenue), Tehsil - Sadar, Varanasi
(Respondent
no.
2)
by
order
dated
20.12.2021
confirming
the
order
of
respondent no. 3.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that once suit has been decreed
under section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act,
1950 and the said decree has remained unappealed against and has thus attained
finality, then the name of decree holder is
required to be mutated in the revenue records.
He submits that the application for correction
of records would lie in those cases only
where wrong entry has been carried out on
the part of the revenue authorities or any
omission has taken place. He submits that
here is a case where petitioner filed a suit for
declaratory rights under section 229-B of
UPZA & LR Act, 1950 and was decreed on
the basis of compromise reached between
recorded tenure holder and the petitioner and,
therefore, the petitioner's application for
mutation was absolutely maintainable.

6. Per contra, it is argued by the learned
Standing
Counsel
that
once
revenue
authorities have entered the name in the
revenue records of a tenure holder, who is a
rightful claimant and if somebody has
obtained
the order
on
the basis
of
compromise, it is a case were right is to be
taken as to have always existed and so no
entry of such a person in revenue records be
taken as omission and so application would
lie for correction of records. It is further
submitted that under the UP Revenue Code,
2006 under section 34 and 35 mutation may
not be permissible on the basis of a decree of
court of law in view of other provisions
contained in U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
9 All. Sukhdev Kumar Chaubey Vs. Commissioner Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi & Ors.
251

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and their respective arguments
raised across the bar, I find that Sections 34
and 35 of UP Revenue Code, 2006 provides
for mutation to be carried out in the
revenue records by way of succession or
transfer
which
also
includes
family
settlement. Sections 33, 34 and 35 of UP
Revenue Code, 2006 are reproduced herein
below.

Section 33. (1) Every person
obtaining possession of any land by
succession shall submit report of such
succession to the Revenue Inspector of
the circle in which the land is situate in
such form as may be prescribed.

(2) On receipt of a report under
sub-section (1) or on facts otherwise
coming to his knowledge, the Revenue
Inspector shall -

(a) if the case is not disputed,
record such succession in the record of
rights (Khatauni);

(b) in any other case, make such
inquiry as may appear to him to be
necessary and submit his report to the
Tahsildar.

[(3)] Any person whose name
has not been recorded by Revenue
Inspector or is aggrieved by the order
passed by the Revenue Inspector [under
clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (2)] may
move an application before Tahsildar.

[(4)] The
provisions
of
this
section shall mutatis mutandis apply to
every person admitted as a Bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights or as an
asami by the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti
in accordance with the provisions of this
Code or any enactment repealed by it.

34. Duty to report in cases of
transfer - [(1)] Every person obtaining
possession of any land by transfer, other
than transfer referred to in sub-section
(3) of Section 33 shall report such
transfer, in the manner prescribed, to the
Tahsildar of the Tahsil in which the land
as situate.

Explanation. - (1) For the
purposes of this section, the word
transfer includes a family settlement
[***].

[(2) State Government may fix a
scale of fees for getting entry recorded in
the record of rights on the basis of
transfer. A fee in respect of any such entry
shall be payable by the person in whose
favour the entry is to be made.]

35.
Mutation
in
cases
of
succession or transfer. (1) On the receipt
of a report under Section 33 or Section 34,
or upon facts otherwise coming to his
knowledge, the Tahsildar shall issue a
proclamation and make such inquiry as
appears and -

(a) if the case is not disputed, he
shall direct the record of rights (Khatuani)
to be amended accordingly;

[***]

[(c) if the case is disputed, he
shall decide the dispute and direct, if
necessary, the record of rights (khatauni) to
be amended accordingly.]

[(2) Any person aggrieved by an
order of the Tahsildar under sub-section (1)
may prefer an appeal to the Sub-Divisional
Officer within a period of thirty days from
the date of such order.]

8. Section 38 of UP Revenue
Code, 2006 talks about correction or error
and
omission.
the
main
substantive
provision of Section 38(1) is reproduced
herein below.

38. Correction of error and
omission. (1) An application for correction
of any error or omission in the map, fieldbook
(Khasra)
or
record
of
rights
(Khatauni) shall be made to the Tahsildar
in the manner prescribed.
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(Emphasis added).

9. The language of Sub-section 4 of
the Section 33 provides for mutation in the
event a person is admitted as Bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights or Asami by
Land Management Committee. So the
legislature intended mutation not only in
cases of transfer and succession but also
where
rights
are
created
under
the
provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

10. Upon reading of section 34, it
clearly transpires that in case of succession
by way of transfer which includes family
settlement, mutation application would be
maintainable.

11. The words and phrase "upon facts
otherwise coming to his knowledge" is
indication of intended of litigation to cover
all such cases that may require mutation as
and end right of any lawful proceedings
drawn to enable Tehsildar to carryout
mutation after holding due enquiry.

12. From a bare reading of provisions
of section 38 of UP Revenue Code, 2006, I
find that an application for correction of
any error or omission in the map, field
book (Khasra) or record of rights, shall be
made to the Tehsildar in the manner
prescribed. Sub section 5 deals with those
cases where the entries are manipulated in
the records of Khasra and Khatauni, they
may have to be expunged. Thus the two
provisions
operate
in
two
different
directions: while one permits the revenue
authorities
to
entertain
the
mutation
application to enter the name in the revenue
records on the basis of succession/transfer
which includes family settlement; the other
provision provides that where entry may
have been entered for some mistake on the
part of the revenue authorities and if such
an entry is found fraudulent, the entries are
required to be expunged.

13. Besides what is discussed above, I
find that section 34(1) uses words and
expression "upon facts otherwise coming to
his
knowledge".
These
words
and
expressions denote a situation where facts
placed before the Tehsildar indicate a
situation where a person's name is required
to be entered into the records of rights as
such rights got accrued. This power of
Tehsildar besides being suo motu, can also
be exercised upon application being made
in that behalf. A declaratory decree of a
competent revenue court holding and
declaring a person to be title holder of a
land falling in a revenue village, would be
such a case and, therefore, in such
circumstances, if decree holder takes a plea
before the Tehsildar that he having been
declared owner in possession of the land, is
entitled for mutation, Tehsildar concerned
shall have to pass order thereupon and if
someone disputes, he will decide the case
on merits.

14. In such above view of the matter,
therefore, in so far as the view taken by the
Teshildar qua maintainability of mutation
application appears to be misplaced. In my
considered view, if a person who is in
possession of any land either by succession
or otherwise having rightful claim, can
apply for mutation by virtue of provisions
contained under Section 34 of the UP
Revenue Code, 2006 and therefore, the
person who has obtained decree, would be
entitled to move an application under
Section 34 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006,
to get the name mutated in the revenue
records. A declaratory suit under Section
229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950 or under Section 144 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is a lawful
9 All. Sukhdev Kumar Chaubey Vs. Commissioner Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi & Ors.
253
proceeding under the Act and therefore, a
suit
if
decreed,
may
be
upon
a
compromises reached between the parties,
such a decree unless and until set aside, is
binding and mutation application for
carrying out entry in revenue records would
be maintainable under the Act.

15. The authorities cited by learned
counsel for the petitioner are worth
consideration. In the case of Parabhu Vs.
Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad
reported in 1968 SCC OnLine All 398 :
1968 RD 195, the Court declined to
interfere in the order of the Board of
Revenue whereby it had directed the Naib
Tehsildar
concerned
to
proceed
and
conclude the matter of mutation on the
basis of decree passed by civil court, Vide
paragraph Nos. 5,6,7 and 8 it has been hed
thus :

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer
dismissed the application on the ground
that there was no evidence to show that plot
No. 71 corresponds to the old plot No. 789
in respect of which civil litigation took
place between the parties. The petitioners'
revision was dismissed by the Additional
District Magistrate by affirming this
finding and also on the ground that the civil
court decree did not entitle the applicants to
any right in respect of the whole of the plot
No. 789 and that it could not be found out
from the civil court judgments and decree
as to in respect of what portion the right
was granted in favour of the petitioners. He
also doubted whether the finding of the
civil court given in the suit for injunction
had any binding effect on the parties. The
Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioners'
revision on the ground that it agreed with
the lower court.

6. It has been stated in the present
petition that there was no dispute between
the parties that the old plot No. 789 was
renumbered
as
plot
No.
71
during
consolidation
operations.
In
fact,
respondent No. 5, who had appeared in the
witness-box, had admitted this fact. The
authorities below were, therefore, in error
in presuming that there was no evidence on
the point. Further, the appellate judgment in
the civil suit shows that the appellate court
had demarcated the area over which the
petitioners were held entitled as owners in
the map of the commissioner dated October
13, 1959. It cannot, therefore, be said that
the decree was not executable or that the
land given to the plaintiffs was not
identifiable. The view of the Additional
District Magistrate that the judgments of
the civil courts were not binding on the
parties does not appear to have any
substance. Since the plot had been excluded
from consolidation operations the title in
respect of it could be adjudicated upon by
the regular courts. The decree of the
appellate court in the civil suits had become
final and did operate as binding upon the
parties. It was incumbent upon the revenue
authorities to mutate the names according
to that judgment.

7. It was urged that since the
records were revised during consolidation
operations, no application lay before the
revenue
authorities
for
mutation
under Section 33 of the Land Revenue
Act. In view of the further fact that the civil
court decree declared the rights of the
parties, that decree had to be effectuated in
the revenue records. The application could
not, therefore, be rejected on that ground.

8.
The
petition,
therefore,
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
orders of the courts below are set aside.
The matter is sent back to the SubDivisional Officer, Sadar, Azamgarh with a
direction
to
decide
the
petitioners'
application afresh in accordance with law
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and in the light of the observations made
above. The petitioners will be entitled to
their costs.

16. In the case of Satpal Singh and
others Vs. State of Haryana and others,
the issue before Punjab and Haryana High
Court was that application for mutation had
been rejected on the ground that earlier
mutation orders passed on the basis of Will
and succession were not set aside by any
declaratory decree in a suit in terms of
Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue
Act. It was argued before the High Court
that decree of the civil court had attained
finality up to the Supreme Court and,
therefore, the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant
Collector, Ambala Cantt. was not justified
in rejecting mutation application merely on
the ground that earlier mutation orders
were
not
challenged
in
civil
suit
proceedings and so those orders were
binding.

17. The High Court referred to
various authorities and finally held that
the
mutation
application
was
maintainable and directed Naib Tehsildar
concerned to decide the same. The
discussions and observations made and
the ultimate order passed by the Punjab
and Haryana High Court are reproduced
hereunder:

"In reply, learned senior counsel
for the petitioners, in support of his
arguments, has relied upon a judgment of
this Court in Sube Singh Vs. Financial
Commissioner,
Revenue,
Haryana,
2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 766, to submit that
it has been held by the Division Bench
that the approach adopted by the revenue
authorities ignoring the decree of Civil
Court, merely because a subsequent suit
is pending, is erroneous, as the revenue
authorities have to sanction the mutation
on the basis of Civil Court decree.

Learned
senior
counsel
has
further relied upon another judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in Bachan
Singh
and
others
Vs.
Financial
Commissioner, Appeal (I), Punjab and
others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 887,
wherein a similar view has been taken
that the order passed by the Civil Court is
binding on the revenue authorities and
there is no requirement of a formal
direction for incorporating the verdict of
the Civil Court in the revenue record by
sanctioning the mutation.

Learned senior counsel has also
relied upon judgment in Baljit Singh Vs.
Financial
Commissioner,
Animal
Husbandry, Punjab, Chaandigarh and
others, 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 384,
wherein this Court has held that where
under Section 34 of Punjab Land
Revenue Act, mutation of inheritance is
sanctioned ignoring the Civil Court
decree,
a
revenue
officer
has
no
jurisdiction to disregard the judgment and
decree passed by the Civil Court.

Learned senior counsel has next
relied upon judgment in Rajesh Kumar
Vs. Financial Commissioner and others,
2009 (11) RCR (Civil) 316, wherein this
Court held that the mutations according to
decree of the Court are to be given effect
even if an appeal is pending against the
decree and the revenue authorities are not
bound to wait for order of the Court.

It is argued that in this case, both
the proprietary body as well asw private
individuals, who were contesting against
the petitioners, lost their cases up to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, on all
counts,
Naib
Tehsilar-cum-Assistant
Collector, 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt has
erroneously ignored the Civil Court decree,
as upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9 All. Sukhdev Kumar Chaubey Vs. Commissioner Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi & Ors.
255
It is further submitted that the ground taken
by
the
Naib
Tehsildar-cum-Assistant
Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt is that
earlier mutations sanctioned in the year
1961-62 were already put up as defence
before the Civi Court and once the Will
dated 09.06.1917 in favour of Bhondu was
upheld, those two mutations No. 543 and
735 looses their sanctity. It is also argued
that
during
the
aforesaid
mutation
proceedings, it is recorded that Thakur
Singh made some concession, also stands
tested by the Civil Court and this ground
was never upheld by the Civil Court.

The next ground taken by Naib
Tehildar-cum-Assistant
Collector
2nd
Grade, Ambala Cantt that no specific suit
for declaration under Section 45 of Punjab
Land
Revenue
Act
has
been
filed
challenging the mutations and for setting
aside the same, is totally illogical and
illegal, as once the decree has been passed,
in which predecessor of the petitioners
Bhondu was held to be owner of the land
by way of Will dated 09.06.1917, it
amounts to declaration regarding their title
over the land in dispute.

After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, I find merit in the present writ
petition. None of the reasons given in the
impugned order dated 18.05.2022 passed by
Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd
Grade, Ambala Cantt are sustainable in the
eyes of law, in view of the observations made
above.

Naib
Tehsildar-cum-Assistant
Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt has
daringly ignored the judgment of the Civil
Court, holding the Will dated 09.06.1917 to
be a valid Will in favour of predecessor of the
petitioners and this finding is upheld upto the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is duty
of revenue officials to incorporate the decree
in the revenue record in letter and spirit and
the
impugned
order
dismissing
the
application for entering the mutations, cannot
be upheld in any manner. Though this Court
finds that the impugned order has been
passed to violate the mandate of the decree,
however, instead of initiating contempt
proceedings, one opportunity is granted to
Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd
Grade, Ambala Cantt to pass a fresh order,
strictly in compliance of the decree dated
14.08.1978, as upheld upto the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India."

18. Thus in view of the above legal
prepositions as referred and discussed and
since I do not find any reason to take a
different view, the order of the Tehsildar
(Judicial),
Tehsil
-
Sadar,
Varnasi
(Respondent no. 3) dated 18.1.2020 and the
order dated 20.12.2021 passed by SubDivisional Officer (Revenue)/ Dy. Collector
(Revenue), Tehsildar - Sadar, Varanasi
(Respondent no. 2) confirming the order
dated 18.01.2020 are held unsustainable in
the eye of law and accordingly both the
orders are hereby set aside. Mutation
application of the petitioner before the
Tehsildar stands restored and the Tehsildar
(Respondent no. 3) is directed to proceed in
the matter strictly in accordance with law by
ensuring service of notice upon the parties
concerned through an advertisement such as
may be prescribed for and shall proceed to
decide the matter after recording satisfaction
regarding service of the notice upon all the
parties concerned and also will give
opportunity of hearing to the appearing
parties. The entire proceeding shall be
concluded by the Tehsildar (Respondent no.
3) positively within a period of five months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

19. With the aforesaid observations
and directions this writ petition is disposed
of with no order as to cost.
----------
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022) 9 ILRA 256
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Matters U/A 227 (Criminal ) No. 6372 of 2021

Kamlesh Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhishek Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Padmaker Pandey, Sri V.P.
Srivastava (Senior Counsel), Sri Sunil
Kumar Srivastava, Sri Manish Tiwari (Senior
Counsel)

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 311- The
CMM suo-motu recalled the passed by
CMM, Court No. IX, District Kanpur by
which summoned the N.O.C. as well as
other documents from the concerned
department
further
directed
for
obtaining
the
handwriting
expert
against which order-Specific allegation
against the petitioner is that he in
order to grab the company without any
resolution of Board of Directors as well
as without any permission of Registrar
of Companies submitted a renewal
form before the Assistant Director
Factory
(Karkhana),
Uttar
Pradesh,
Kanpur
Division,
Kanpur
alleging
himself to be a proprietor and when
the authority asked for the resolution
passed by Board of Directors, the
petitioner
submitted
a
forged
and
fabricated document along with N.O.C.
alleged to have been issued by the
respondent no.2/complainant, thus to
arrive at a just decision of the case it
was
incumbent
upon
the
learned
Magistrate
to
summon
those
documents
from
the
concerned
authority and therefore, there is no
illegality in the impugned order, which
has been rightly upheld by the learned
Sessions Court.

Settled law that it is mandatory for the court tol
recall and re-examine any person if his evidence
appears to it to be essential to the just decision
of the case, hence no illegality committed in
summoning the documents by the Magistrate.
(Para 8)

Petition rejected. (E-3)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Hanuman Ram Vs The St. of Raj. & Ors 2009
(1) ACR 789 (SC)

2. Birla Corp. Ltd. Vs Adventz Investments &
Holdings Ltd. & ors, AIR 2019 Supreme Court
2390

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. The instant petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed for setting aside the order dated
16.11.2019
passed
by
learned
Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in
Complaint Case No. 6077 of 2018 (Dinesh
Kumar Gupta Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Gupta
and another) under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station
Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby
the learned Magistrate after exercise its
powers under Sections 311 and 202 Cr.P.C.
to arrive at just decision of the case has
summoned the N.O.C. along with relevant
documents from the concerned department
as well as to set aside the Judgement and
order dated 29.09.2021 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar (Kamlesh
Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and
another), whereby criminal revision filed
by the petitioner against the order dated
16.11.2019 has been rejected.