JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—When the original tenure holder Chhanni alias Parshu Ram Tripathi died leaving behind his four sons, namely, Satish Chandra, Bagesh Chandra, Umesh Chandra and Ramesh Chandra and when only the name of Satish Chandra was entered as a successor of his, then, the other sons, namely, Bagesh Chandra, Umesh Chandra and Ramesh Chandra complained the matter before the Naib Tehsildar. On 10.10.1977, the Naib Tehsildaar found that all the four sons were the successors of Chhanni and, therefore, the names of the four sons were ordered to be entered in the revenue records. Satish Chandra had filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 27.1.1978 and thereafter the revision which was filed was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. 2. However, when Satish Chandra died on 25.7.2009 and the names of only his sons, namely, Pawan Kumar, Gyanendra Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Ajay Kumar and widow Savitri Devi were found entered in the revenue records, the petitioners who are the sons of Bagesh Chandra, Umesh Chandra and Ramesh Chandra objected to the entry by filing an application dated 10.7.2010. When on 6.6.2012 the application was dismissed and thereafter the revision which was filed by the petitioners was also dismissed on 18.6.2012, the instant writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when they filed the application on 10.7.2010 a report was called for by the Sub Divisional Officer from the Tehsildaar and the report was also submitted on 27.7.2010 which had very categorically brought on record the orders of the Naib Tehsildar, the Appellate Court and of the Board of Revenue. However, the Sub Divisional Officer simply dismissed the application of the petitioner saying that no provision of law had been mentioned by the petitioners. On the application, the revisional Court also, upon finding that no provision/section under which the application was moved had been mentioned, dismissed the revision. 4. Learned counsel submitted that definitely from the tenor of the prayer made in the application it was clear that it was filed under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The heading of the certified copy of the order dated 6.6.2012 also mentioned that the same was passed under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. 4. Learned counsel submitted that definitely from the tenor of the prayer made in the application it was clear that it was filed under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The heading of the certified copy of the order dated 6.6.2012 also mentioned that the same was passed under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. He submits that there are a catena of decisions that if the prayer indicates as to under which provision the application had been filed, but the application actually does not mention the provisions/sections then the application cannot be dismissed on that ground alone. Non-mentioning of provisions of law will not disentitle a party to a relief which he was entitled for. Relief is to be granted on the basis of the pleadings made. 5. Learned counsel, to bolster his submissions relied upon Prabhakara Rao H. Mawale v. Hyderabad State Bank, AIR 1964 AP 101 ; Union of India v. Sagarmull Agarwal, AIR 2007 Sikkim 33; The Vice-Chancellor, Jamu University and another v. Dushinant Kumar Rampal, AIR 1977 SC 1146 ; Pince Chemicals Ltd. and others v. Assessing Authority, 1992 (2) SCC 683 and Osborne Lewis Jordan v. Phylis Sylvia Jordan and another, AIR 1986 Delhi 72. 6. In reply Sri K.K. Tripathi does not dispute this proposition of law. However, he submits that since an entry was made and if the petitioner wanted his name to be mutated then he should approach the regular Civil Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since no decision was arrived at by the Revenue Court on the application which was filed on 10.7.2010, it would be a futile exercise to relegate the parties to a Civil Court. In the instant case, there are orders of the Revenue Court which were only required to be implemented by the revenue authorities. In my opinion, therefore, the application should not have been dismissed saying that it did not disclose as to under which provision of law the same was moved. As has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners non-mentioning of a specific provision should not debar a litigant from getting the deserved relief. Only if a wrong provision is mentioned intentionally to mislead the opposite party or to facilitate forum hunting would the Court deprecate the act. As has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners non-mentioning of a specific provision should not debar a litigant from getting the deserved relief. Only if a wrong provision is mentioned intentionally to mislead the opposite party or to facilitate forum hunting would the Court deprecate the act. But if the mistake is inadvertent or because of the inexperience of the lawyer it should be condoned and the party who moved the application should be permitted to rectify the mistake. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 6.6.2012 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate and the order dated 18.6.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, are quashed. 9. The matter shall now be heard by the respondent No. 2 and be decided on merit within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The respondent No. 2 shall also permit the petitioner to rectify the mistakes which might have crept in.