Mahatma And 7 Others vs Rajendra Kumar Tiwari
2026 Latest Caselaw 595 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mahatma And 7 Others vs Rajendra Kumar Tiwari on 31 March, 2026

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:22316
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1384 of 2026   
 
   Mahatma And 7 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Rajendra Kumar Tiwari    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Mahendra Kumar Jain   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Nishant Srivastava, Vivek Kumar Singh   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.       

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Nishant Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had filed a suit for cancellation of adoption deed dated 26/27.8.1977 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Gonda on 11.1.2017 which was registered as Suit No. 4 of 2017. It has been submitted that on 16.12.2021 the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and an application for restoration was moved on 14.12.2023 after a delay of nearly two year. In the application for restoration it was stated by the petitioners that the delay was occasioned on account of the fact that wife of the petitioner was seriously ill and she had to be admitted at Lucknow for treatment and thereafter he had prayed that delay be condoned and the suit be restored.

3. The trial court considering the rival contention had allowed the application for restoration by means of order dated 24.4.2025. Against the the order dated 24.4.2025 the opposite parties filed revision before District Judge, Gonda. The District Judge, Gonda in his order dated 19.2.2026 after considering the rival contention was of the view that no evidence had been filed by the petitioner in support of the reasons stated by him in the application for restoration and thereafter was of the view that the matter be remanded to trial court for consideration afresh. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 19.2.2026 passed by the District Judge, Gonda has been assailed before this Court.

5. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not wish the press his prayer for assailing the order dated 19.2.2026 subject to the condition that before the trial court the petitioners may be permitted to adduce evidence in support of application for restoration.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, no interference is being made in the order impugned dated 19.2.2026. It is provided that before the trial court the petitioners will be at liberty to adduce evidence in support of their application for restoration. The trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings. The parties before this Court have undertaken to cooperate in the proceedings of the case.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

March 31, 2026

J. K. Dinkar