Back
2026 Supreme(All) 611
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Vinod Diwakar, J.
Kundan - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No.- 12485 of 2025 A227/12434/2025, A227/12515/2025, A227/12524/2025, A227/13115/2025, A227/13129/2025, A227/13622/2025, A227/13746/2025, A227/14400/2025, A227/1539/2025, A227/5149/2022
Decided On : 29-05-2026
For the Petitioner: Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel
For the Respondent: G.A., Mayank
Revisional courts must avoid routine, mechanical remands. Once the court has applied its judicial mind and recorded findings on merits, it should conclusively adjudicate the dispute rather than remanding it, thereby preventing avoidable litigation, reducing judicial backlogs, and upholding the principle of the finality of proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 145, 146, 397 and 401 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 164, 175(3), 438 and 442 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Property dispute - Revisional jurisdiction - Exercise of power of remand - Court observes that periodic, routine remands of cases where the court has already applied its judicial mind to the merits of the dispute leads to multiplicity of proceedings and defeats the principle of finality of litigation - Judicial discipline mandates that revisional courts refrain from mechanical remands and exercise their duty to adjudicate the issue conclusively when the record is sufficient for such purpose. (Paras 7, 8, 12, 17, 20)
(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope and Ambit - Supervisory in nature - Power is intended to correct jurisdictional or legal errors rather than providing a mechanism for delayed adjudication - Courts must exercise restraint in setting aside orders and should only resort to remand in rare and exceptional circumstances where they are procedurally unable to conclude the matter on merits. (Paras 12.2, 12.3, 18, 21)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose concerning the ownership and possession of a property, leading to initiation of proceedings before a local magistrate. The magistrate passed an order for attachment of the property. The revisional court, upon hearing the revision, set aside the magistrate’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, despite having recorded findings on the merits of the case in its order. Multiple similar matters were identified where revisional courts were routinely remanding cases to trial courts after expressing definitive views on the underlying controversies.
Issues: The central question was whether the revisional court is justified in remanding a matter to the trial court for fresh adjudication after it has already examined the record and recorded findings on the merits of the case.
Findings of Court:
The court held that such routine remands cause avoidable delays and impose unnecessary burdens on both parties and the judiciary. Revisional courts possess the jurisdiction to finally decide such issues when the record is adequate. Remand should be treated as an exception and requires specific recorded reasons demonstrating an inability to dispose of the matter finally.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional court has applied its judicial mind and arrived at a conclusion based on the record, it is duty-bound to deliver a final verdict instead of remanding the case to the subordinate court, as unnecessary remands violate the principle of judicial economy and finality of litigation.
Result: The impugned order of the revisional court was set aside. Directions were issued for concerned judicial authorities to avoid routine remands and ensure the finality of litigation whenever possible.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical factual background and proceedings in lower courts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. the inefficiency and impropriety of routine remand orders. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. scope and supervisory nature of criminal revisional jurisdiction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. rationale for final adjudication over remand in specific property disputes. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. guidelines for subordinate courts in uttar pradesh regarding remand powers. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. administrative directions for dissemination of judicial training and practice. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. Heard Ms. Rama Goel Bansal and Ms. Shalini Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned Amicus Curiae, and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been instituted seeking to set aside the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura, in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2025, titled Dhruv Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, whereby the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration.
3. In brief, the facts are that the petitioner approached the City Magistrate, Mathura, with a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C., stating that he owns a marriage home in the name of Kundan Vatika, which comprises rooms, a hall, and a field. The complainant states that he constructed the marriage home on his own land. One room in the corner of the marriage hall was given to the security guard, Dhruv Singh, who began residing therein. The security guard now seeks to usurp the complainant's marriage hall by claiming that he had purchased it from Kundan Singh. The electricity and water connections are in the name of the complainant, Kundan Singh. On receipt of the complaint, the City Magistrate sought a report from the Inspector, P.S. Kotwali. The Inspector submitted a report dated 15.07.2021, stating that both parties are claiming their rights over the disputed property, that there is a likelihood of a breach of peace, and that an untoward incident may occur between the parties.
4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, the City Magistrate, vide order dated 10.08.2021, directed the Police to attach the property and hand over the same to a neutral person so as to avoid any serious conflict between the parties. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no. 2 moved an application on 30.09.2021 for recall of the order dated 10.08.2021. The City Magistrate, Mathura, again sought a report from the Police, pursuant to which a fresh report dated 23.11.2024 was submitted, stating that Civil Suit No. 874 of 2019, titled Dhruv Singh v. Kundan Singh, is pending trial before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura, and that the trial court, vide order dated 25.09.2023, directed the parties to maintain status quo. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the record, the City Magistrate, Mathura, vide order dated 26.12.2024, dismissed the application of respondent no. 2 for recall of the order dated 10.08.2021.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2024, respondent no. 2, on 07.01.2025, preferred a criminal revision along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, assailing the orders dated 10.08.2021 and 26.12.2024, before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mathura. The Revisional Court, vide order dated 09.09.2025, allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and set aside the orders dated 10.08.2021 and 26.12.2024, with a direction to the City Magistrate, Mathura, to pass a fresh order.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Court has recorded its findings in paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 of the impugned order dated 09.09.2025, wherein it is observed that Civil Suit No. 874 of 2019, titled Dhruv Singh v. Kundan and Others, is pending between the parties, and that the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the substantive rights of the pa
