Revisional Courts must decide issues based on undisputed facts rather than remanding unless justified by jurisdictional error; findings from summary proceedings do not bind subsequent litigation.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Sri Adarsh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent no. 3 and has filed his counter affidavit which is taken on record.

2. The office report dated 02.11.2022 indicates that service on the private respondents is complete, however, it is only the private respondent no. 3 who is contesting the proceedings.

3. Under challenge is the order dated 26.04.2022 whereby the revision preferred by the private respondent no. 3 has been allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property in question belonged to one Sri Kesar son of Doober. Upon his death, the name of his widow namely Smt. Surata was to be mutated, however, the name of Ms. Genda was also incorporated.

5. This in the first round of litigation was challenged and it was contended by the petitioners that after the death of Kesar, the property would devolve on his widow and not on the alleged niece namely Ms. Genda.

6. This issue which was first contested between Smt. Surata and Ms. Genda came to be decided in favour of Smt. Surata. A revision was also preferred against the said order by Ms. Genda but that too was dismissed.

7. At this stage, the first round of litigation came to an end. The second round of litigation again commenced upon the death of Smt. Surata wherein the present petitioners claimed rights on the property on the basis of being the nephews whereas Ms. Genda once again contested the proceedings claiming her rights being the niece.

8. It is in this context that the mutation order was passed in favour of the petitioners on 07.02.2019 against which Ms. Genda preferred a revision which has been allowed by the impunged order dated 26.04.2022 and the matter was remanded to the Court of first instance for decision afresh.

9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was enough material available on record which could have decided the matter but the Revisional Court has committed an error in ignoring the undisputed facts and remanding the matter.

10. It is further contended that once it was held against Ms. Genda that she was not the preferential heir to the property of Sri Kesar, unless and until she could establish her right, she would not have a right to claim rights in the property of Smt. Surata widow of Kesar.

11. It is further submitted that the Revisional Court has misconstrued the facts and has remanded the matter which was not required to be done as far as possible the Revisional Court should have decided the issue at its own level, inasmuch as, the facts were undisputed and thus the order of remand was bad in the eyes of law.

12. Sri Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no. 3 submits that at one given point of time, a compromise was arrived at between Smt. Surata and Ms. Genda and in terms thereof, Ms. Genda had acquired rights in the property, thus, upon the death of Smt. Surata, Ms. Genda would be the preferential heir and this aspect was considered and since it was ignored by the court of first instance, hence, the Revisional Court was justified in remanding the matter.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, it is urged that this petition deserves to be dismissed, apart from the fact that against a remand order, the writ petition is usually not entertained by the Court.

14. Having considered the rival submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the property in question belonged to S