# Dinesh Kumar Maurya & Anr v. The Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 215
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application No. 187 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-kumar-maurya-anr-v-the-chancellor-lucknow-university-lko-ors-49424
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 - Review -
Grounds - Counsel's failure to notice
relevant case law not a valid ground - A
review application can only be filed where
the
Court
has
committed
an
error
apparent on the face of the record. An
error committed by counsel in failing to
notice or cite a relevant judgment cannot
constitute a valid ground for review, since
review is not intended to provide a rehearing of the matter. (Para 11)

B. Civil Law - Limitation Act, 1963 -
Section 5 - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC -
Review
-
Delay
Condonation

-
Explanation
vis-à-vis
Excuse
-
Condonation
of
delay
being
a
discretionary power available to courts,
the exercise of discretion must necessarily
depend upon the sufficiency of the cause
shown and the degree of acceptability of
the explanation. Courts must distinguish
between
an
"explanation"
and
an
"excuse." An explanation lays out the
cause for something, allowing a person to
show that what happened was not his
fault. However, care must be taken to
distinguish
an
explanation
from
an
excuse, which is often offered to deny
responsibility
or
consequences
when
under
attack
-
a
defensive
action
implying the reason proffered is not
genuine. (Para 8)

C. In the present case, the review was
filed on the ground that the petitioners
had preferred SLP against the judgment
dated 07.02.2023 sought to be reviewed,
and while preparing submissions before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, counsel came
across the judgment dated 08.09.2015
reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473, which he
had earlier failed to notice. The SLP was
subsequently withdrawn without liberty
and dismissed as such on 10.04.2023. The
review was then filed on 02.09.2023, i.e.
145 days after withdrawal of the SLP.
Held: Failure of learned counsel to notice a
judgment earlier and its later discovery
while preparing submissions for the SLP
does not amount to "discovery of a new
and important matter or evidence" within
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Under the guise of review, the petitioners
cannot claim a re-hearing on this ground.
(Paras 11, 18)

D. In the instant case, an application was
filed on 02.09.2023 seeking condonation
of delay in filing a review of the judgment
and order dated 07.02.2023. To explain
the delay, a copy of a pathological
examination report dated 08.02.2023 and
a prescription dated 17.03.2023 issued on
plain
paper
advising
seven
days'
medication for petitioner no. 1 were
annexed. The doctor's advice ended on
24.03.2023, and there was nothing on
record to indicate continuance of any
ailment thereafter till the filing of the
petition on 02.09.2023. There was also no
averment explaining why petitioner no. 2
did not approach the Court within the
prescribed limitation. No circumstance
was pleaded giving rise to a sufficient
cause for not filing the review application
in time. Held: The averment regarding
petitioner no. 1 having consulted a doctor
on 17.03.2023 was made merely as an
excuse for delayed filing and did not
constitute
a
bona
fide
explanation
amounting to sufficient cause for condonation of
delay. (Para 13)
Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

11 All. Dinesh Kumar Maurya & Anr. Vs. The Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. & Ors.
215
also decided in terms of the finding of the
lead matter- "RERA Appeal (Defective)
No. 67 of 2023 (Complainant- Dhruv Kr.
Chaturvedi).

(151) Accordingly, RERA Appeal No.
110 of 2023, RERA Appeal No. 111 of
2023, RERA Appeal No. 112 of 2023,
RERA Appeal No. 113 of 2023, RERA
Appeal No. 114 of 2023, RERA Appeal No.
115 of 2023, RERA Appeal No. 116 of
2023 & RERA Appeal No. 117 of 2023 are
also dismissed.

(152) As a priori, all these appeals are
dismissed and interim orders, if any, stands
vacated.

(153) Office is directed to place a
copy of this order in each of the abovecaptioned appeals.

(154) There shall be no order as to
cost.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 215
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 187 of 2023

Dinesh Kumar Maurya & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
The Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. &
Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Yadukul Shiromani Srivastava (Y.S. Lohit)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 - Review -
Grounds - Counsel's failure to notice
relevant case law not a valid ground - A
review application can only be filed where
the
Court
has
committed
an
error
apparent on the face of the record. An
error committed by counsel in failing to
notice or cite a relevant judgment cannot
constitute a valid ground for review, since
review is not intended to provide a rehearing of the matter. (Para 11)

B. Civil Law - Limitation Act, 1963 -
Section 5 - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC -
Review
-
Delay
Condonation

-
Explanation
vis-à-vis
Excuse
-
Condonation
of
delay
being
a
discretionary power available to courts,
the exercise of discretion must necessarily
depend upon the sufficiency of the cause
shown and the degree of acceptability of
the explanation. Courts must distinguish
between
an
"explanation"
and
an
"excuse." An explanation lays out the
cause for something, allowing a person to
show that what happened was not his
fault. However, care must be taken to
distinguish
an
explanation
from
an
excuse, which is often offered to deny
responsibility
or
consequences
when
under
attack
-
a
defensive
action
implying the reason proffered is not
genuine. (Para 8)

C. In the present case, the review was
filed on the ground that the petitioners
had preferred SLP against the judgment
dated 07.02.2023 sought to be reviewed,
and while preparing submissions before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, counsel came
across the judgment dated 08.09.2015
reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473, which he
had earlier failed to notice. The SLP was
subsequently withdrawn without liberty
and dismissed as such on 10.04.2023. The
review was then filed on 02.09.2023, i.e.
145 days after withdrawal of the SLP.
Held: Failure of learned counsel to notice a
judgment earlier and its later discovery
while preparing submissions for the SLP
does not amount to "discovery of a new
and important matter or evidence" within
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Under the guise of review, the petitioners
cannot claim a re-hearing on this ground.
(Paras 11, 18)

D. In the instant case, an application was
filed on 02.09.2023 seeking condonation
of delay in filing a review of the judgment
and order dated 07.02.2023. To explain
the delay, a copy of a pathological
examination report dated 08.02.2023 and
a prescription dated 17.03.2023 issued on
plain
paper
advising
seven
days'
medication for petitioner no. 1 were
annexed. The doctor's advice ended on
24.03.2023, and there was nothing on
record to indicate continuance of any
ailment thereafter till the filing of the
petition on 02.09.2023. There was also no
averment explaining why petitioner no. 2
did not approach the Court within the
prescribed limitation. No circumstance
was pleaded giving rise to a sufficient
cause for not filing the review application
in time. Held: The averment regarding
petitioner no. 1 having consulted a doctor
on 17.03.2023 was made merely as an
excuse for delayed filing and did not
constitute
a
bona
fide
explanation
amounting to sufficient cause for condonation of
delay. (Para 13)
Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.
&
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Y. S. Lohit, the learned counsel
for the applicants and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed
seeking condonation of delay in filing an
application for review of the judgement and order
dated 07.02.2023 passed by a coordinate bench of
this Court dismissing Writ A No. 4433 of
2010 filed by the petitioners. The office has
reported a delay of 174 days in filing the
review application.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the
application for condonation of delay, it has
been stated that while preparing arguments to
be advanced in SLP (C) No. 00633/2023, the
learned counsel for the petitioners came
across the judgment in the case of Vice
Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow
versus Akhilesh Kumar Khare and others,
AIR 2015 SC 3473 rendered in the matter of
daily wage employee of Lucknow University.
Therefore, their Counsel withdrew the S.L.P.
and it was dismissed as such on 10.04.2023.
Much after 10.04.2023, they came to know
that a person who was employed on daily
wages and whose services were terminated in
the year 2008, and whose writ petition and
special appeal had been dismissed by this
Court, had been paid back wages by means of
an order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the
Deputy Registrar (Administration), with the
approval of the Vice Chancellor. They also
came to know that by means of the
judgement and order dated 24.07.2019 passed
in Writ Petition No. 6680 (S/S) of 2007 filed
by Srimati Anima Shukla, who was working
on a non-approved post in self financed
scheme in Lucknow University, this Court
had ordered payment of dues of the
petitioner.

4. It has been stated in the affidavit
that there is sufficient cause to review the
judgement dated 07.02.2023
but the
petitioner no. 1, who is doing Pairvi was ill
and, therefore, the petition could not be
filed earlier.

5. A copy of pathological examination
report dated 08.02.2023 of Dinesh Maurya
and a copy of a prescription dated
17.03.2023 issued on a plain paper for
treatment of Dinesh Kumar advising
medication for seven days, have been
annexed with the affidavit filed in support
of the application. Apparently, even after
11 All. Dinesh Kumar Maurya & Anr. Vs. The Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. & Ors.
217
the pathological examination report dated
08.02.2023, the petitioner no.1 went to
consult a doctor only on 17.03.2023 and the
doctor advised medication for seven days
only, which ended on 24.03.2023. There is
nothing on record to indicate continuance
of any ailment after 24.03.2023 till filing of
the petition on 02.09.2023. Moreover, no
circumstance has been pleaded which
would give rise to a sufficient cause for the
petitioner no. 2 having not approached this
Court for filing the review application
within the prescribed period of limitation.
Thus there is absolutely no explanation for
the delay.

6. In Esha Bhattacharjee vs.
Managing Committee of Raghunathpur
Nafar Academy and Ors. (2013) 12 SCC
649, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed
the law regarding condonation of delay as
explained
in
various
precedents
and
summarized the same as follows: -

"21.
From
the
aforesaid
authorities the principles that can broadly
be culled out are:

(i) There should be a liberal,
pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic
approach while dealing with an application
for condonation of delay, for the courts are
not supposed to legalise injustice but are
obliged to remove injustice.

(ii) The terms "sufficient cause"
should be understood in their proper spirit,
philosophy and purpose regard being had
to the fact that these terms are basically
elastic and are to be applied in proper
perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.

(iii) Substantial justice being
paramount and pivotal the technical
considerations should not be given undue
and uncalled for emphasis.

(iv) No presumption can be
attached to deliberate causation of delay
but, gross negligence on the part of the
counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

(v) Lack of bona fides imputable
to a party seeking condonation of delay is a
significant and relevant fact.

(vi) It is to be kept in mind that
adherence to strict proof should not affect
public justice and cause public mischief
because the courts are required to be
vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate
there is no real failure of justice.

(vii) The concept of liberal
approach has to encapsule the conception
of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed
a totally unfettered free play.

(viii) There is a distinction
between inordinate delay and a delay of
short duration or few days, for the former
doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas
to the latter it may not be attracted. That
apart, the first one warrants strict
approach whereas the second calls for a
liberal delineation.

(ix) The conduct, behaviour and
attitude of a party relating to its inaction
or negligence are relevant factors to be
taken into consideration. It is so as the
fundamental principle is that the courts are
required to weigh the scale of balance of
justice in respect of both parties and the
said principle cannot be given a total go by
in the name of liberal approach.

(x) If the explanation offered is
concocted or the grounds urged in the
application are fanciful, the courts should
be vigilant not to expose the other side
unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

(xi) It is to be borne in mind that
no
one
gets
away
with
fraud,
misrepresentation
or
interpolation
by
taking recourse to the technicalities of law
of limitation.

(xii) The entire gamut of facts are
to be carefully scrutinized and the
approach should be based on the paradigm
218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of judicial discretion which is founded on
objective reasoning and not on individual
perception.

(xiii) The State or a public body
or an entity representing a collective cause
should be given some acceptable latitude.

22. To the aforesaid principles we
may add some more guidelines taking note
of the present day scenario. They are:

(a)
An
application
for
condonation of delay should be drafted
with careful concern and not in a half
hazard manner harbouring the notion that
the courts are required to condone delay
on the bedrock of the principle that
adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal
to justice dispensation system.

(b)
An
application
for
condonation of delay should not be dealt
with in a routine manner on the base of
individual philosophy which is basically
subjective.

(c) Though no precise formula
can be laid down regard being had to the
concept of judicial discretion, yet a
conscious effort for achieving consistency
and collegiality of the adjudicatory system
should be made as that is the ultimate
institutional motto.

(d) The increasing tendency to
perceive delay as a non-serious matter
and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can
be exhibited in a non-challant manner
requires to be curbed, of course, within
legal parameters."
(Emphasis supplied)

7. In Ajay Dabra versus Pyare Ram
and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 92, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"5. What we have here is a pure
civil matter. An appeal has to be filed
within the stipulated period, prescribed
under the law. Belated appeals can only be
condoned, when sufficient reason is shown
before the court for the delay. The
appellant who seeks condonation of delay
therefore must explain the delay of each
day. It is true that the courts should not be
pedantic
in
their
approach
while
condoning the delay, and explanation of
each day's delay should not be taken
literally, but the fact remains that there
must be a reasonable explanation for the
delay."
(Emphasis supplied)

8. In Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased)
Through Lrs. and Others Versus Union
of India and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1278, after discussing the various
precedents on the issue, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court summarized the principles
regarding condonation of delay in the
following words: -

"29.
Considering
the
aforementioned decisions, there cannot be
any quarrel that this Court has stepped in
to ensure that substantive rights of private
parties and the State are not defeated at the
threshold
simply
due
to
technical
considerations of delay. However, these
decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that
condonation of delay being a discretionary
power available to courts, exercise of
discretion must necessarily depend upon
the sufficiency of the cause shown and the
degree of acceptability of the explanation,
the length of delay being immaterial.
Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause
being shown or an acceptable explanation
being proffered, delay of the shortest range
may not be condoned whereas, in certain
other cases, delay of long periods can be
condoned if the explanation is satisfactory
and acceptable. Of course, the courts must
distinguish between an 'explanation' and
an 'excuse'. An 'explanation' is designed
11 All. Dinesh Kumar Maurya & Anr. Vs. The Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. & Ors.
219
to give someone all of the facts and lay out
the cause for something. It helps clarify
the circumstances of a particular event
and allows the person to point out that
something that has happened is not his
fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must
however be taken to distinguish an
'explanation' from an 'excuse'. Although
people tend to see 'explanation' and
'excuse' as the same thing and struggle to
find out the difference between the two,
there is a distinction which, though fine, is
real. An 'excuse' is often offered by a
person
to
deny
responsibility
and
consequences when under attack. It is sort
of a defensive action. Calling something
as just an 'excuse' would imply that the
explanation proffered is believed not to be
true. Thus said, there is no formula that
caters to all situations and, therefore, each
case for condonation of delay based on
existence or absence of sufficient cause has
to be decided on its own facts. At this stage,
we cannot but lament that it is only
excuses, and not explanations, that are
more often accepted for condonation of
long delays to safeguard public interest
from those hidden forces whose sole
agenda is to ensure that a meritorious
claim does not reach the higher courts for
adjudication.
(Emphasis supplied)

9. The judgment sought to be
reviewed was delivered on 07.02.2023. The
petitioners did not apply for grant of its
certified copy. They applied for obtaining
an authenticated computerised copy of
the judgment on 10.02.2023 and the copy
was prepared on the same day, but it was
received on 13.02.2023. Even if the
period between 10.02.2023 to 13.02.2023
is excluded, the limitation for filing the
review
application
expired
on
13.03.2023.

10. The petitioners had filed SLP
(C) No. 00633/2023 against the judgment
and order dated 07.02.2023 which is
sought to be reviewed. The petitioners
claim
that
while
preparing
the
submissions to be advanced before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, their learned
counsel came across the judgment dated
08.09.2015 reported in AIR 2015 SC
3473, which he had failed to notice
earlier. Thereafter, the Counsel withdrew
the SLP without seeking any liberty and it
was dismissed as such on 10.04.2023.
The review application has been filed on
02.09.2023, i.e. 145 days after dismissal
of the S.L.P. as withdrawn.

11. Review application can only be
filed on the ground that the Court had
committed an error, which is apparent on
the face of the record and an error
committed by the Counsel by failing to
notice a relevant case-law and failing to
place the same before the Court cannot be
a ground for review of the judgment, as
the provision for review a judgment is not
meant to provide a re-hearing to the
parties.

12. The petitioner no.1 had gone to
consult a doctor on 17.03.2023 and the
doctor had advised medication for seven
days only. It is not the case of the
petitioner no. 1 that he remained ill till
filing of the review application on
02.09.2023. There is
absolutely no
averment as to why the petitioner no. 2
did not come forward to file the review
application. The petitioner no. 2 had not
even joined in filing of the review
application and he had not signed any
document,
including
the
Vakalatnama
executed in favour of the learned Counsel
and he has signed the Vakalatnama only
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after the officials of the Registry of this
Court had raised an objection to this effect.

13. From the aforesaid facts, it
appears that the averment regarding the
petitioner no. 1 having consulted a doctor
on 17.03.2023 has been made as an excuse
for the delayed filing of the review
application, and it does not offer an
explanation making out a sufficient cause
for the delay.

14. Sri. Y. S. Lohit, the learned
Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the
judgments
in
the
cases
of
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000)
6 SCC 359 : AIR 2000 SC 2587, S.
Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman
Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 :
AIR 2008 SC 719 and Khoday Distilleries
Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara
Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC
376 : AIRONLINE 2019 SC 2218

15. In Kunhayammed v. State of
Kerala (Supra), it was held that: -

"38. The review can be filed even
after SLP is dismissed is clear from the
language of Order 47 Rule 1(a). Thus the
words "no appeal" has been preferred in
Order 47 Rule 1(a) would also mean a
situation where special leave is not
granted. Till then there is no appeal in the
eye of law before the superior court.
Therefore, the review can be preferred in
the High Court before special leave is
granted, but not after it is granted...."

16. The ratio of Kunhayammed
(Supra)
was
followed
in
Khoday
Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara
Sahakara
Sakkare
Karkhane
Ltd.,
(Supra). There can be no dispute against the
aforesaid proposition of law, but it is not
applicable at the time of deciding the
application
under
Section
5
of
the
Limitation Act.

17. In S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani
Roman Catholic Mission (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"11..., it is useful to refer the
provisions under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
relating to review which read as under:

"1. Application for review of
judgment.-(1) Any person considering
himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from
which an appeal is allowed, but from which
no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from
which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference
from a Court of Small Causes, and who,
from the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise
of due diligence, was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or
order made, or on account of some mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record,
or for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or
order made against him, may apply for a
review of judgment of the court which
passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing
from a decree or order may apply for a
review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party
except where the ground of such appeal is
common to the applicant and the appellant,
or when, being respondent, he can present
to the appellate court the case on which he
applies for the review.

Explanation.-The fact that the
decision on a question of law on which the
judgment of the court is based has been
11 All. Dinesh Kumar Maurya & Anr. Vs. The Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. & Ors.
221
reversed or modified by the subsequent
decision of a superior court in any other
case, shall not be a ground for the review of
such judgment."

A reading of the above provision
makes it clear that review is permissible (a)
from the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence could not be
produced by the party at the time when the
decree was passed; (b) on account of some
mistake; (c) where error is apparent on the
face of the record or is a palpable wrong;
(d) any other sufficient reason. If any of the
conditions satisfy, the party may apply for a
review of the judgment or order of the court
which passed the decree or order. The
provision also makes it clear that an
application
for
review
would
be
maintainable not only upon discovery of a
new and important piece of evidence or
when there exists an error apparent on the
face of the record but also if the same is
necessitated on account of some mistake or
for any other sufficient reason.

12. An error contemplated under
the Rule must be such which is apparent on
the face of the record and not an error
which has to be fished out and searched. In
other words, it must be an error of
inadvertence. It should be something more
than a mere error and it must be one which
must be manifest on the face of the record.
When does an error cease to be mere error
and becomes an error apparent on the face
of the record depends upon the materials
placed before the court. If the error is so
apparent
that
without
further
investigation
or
enquiry,
only
one
conclusion can be drawn in favour of
the applicant, in such circumstances,
the review will lie. Under the guise of
review, the parties are not entitled to
rehearing of the same issue but the
issue can be decided just by a perusal
of the records and if it is manifest can
be set right by reviewing the order...."

18. The petitioners have belatedly
approached this Court seeking review
of its judgment on the ground that at the
time of advancing submissions in the
Writ Petition on 07.02.2023, their
learned Counsel had failed to notice and
place a judgment dated 08.09.2015
reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. Failure
of
the
learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners to notice a judgment while
preparing his submissions and the
judgment
being
noticed
by
him
subsequently
during
preparation
of
submissions to be advanced in S.L.P.,
would not be akin to discovery of a new
and
important
matter
or
evidence
which,
after
the
exercise
of
due
diligence could not be produced by the
party at the time when the decree was
passed, as mentioned in Order XLVII
Rule 1 C.P.C. Under the guise of review
on this ground, the petitioners cannot
claim a re-hearing of the matter. In any
case, the aforesaid judgment does not
support
the
petitioners'
claim
of
condonation of delay in filing the
review application.

19. The delay in filing the review
application cannot be condoned without
the
petitioners
having
given
an
explanation showing a sufficient cause
for the delay. Therefore, the application
seeking condonation of delay in filing
the
review
application
cannot
be
allowed and the same is liable to be
rejected.

20. Accordingly, the application
seeking condonation of delay in filing the
review application is rejected.
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Let the review application be
consigned to records.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 222
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 432 of 2023
In
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7428 of 2023

Jag Mohan Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Kanchan Kumari Jain ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Balwinder Singh Suri, Sri Mukesh Kumar
Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sudeep Harkauli

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Review - Review application
by a subsequent counsel not maintainable
- Writ was filed and argued by one
counsel whereas the review application
was filed by another counsel. Held - A
review/recall/modification
application
filed by a subsequent counsel is not
maintainable and is nothing but an
attempt to delay the compliance of the
judgment;
therefore,
the
review
application is liable to be dismissed
with exemplary cost. The practice of
engagement of a new counsel for filing
review/recall/modification
must
be
deprecated. Granting such permission
would amount to gross misuse of the
process of law and an attempt to raise
new arguments for re-hearing of the
case on merits. Mere obtaining of a
"No
Objection
Certificate"
is
not
sufficient
for
filing
of
a
review
application by a subsequent counsel.
(Para 13)
Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Balwinder Singh Suri
along with Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for applicant/petitioner and
Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for
opposite party/respondent.

2. Present review application has been
filed seeking following reliefs:-

"(a)
To
allow
this
review
application by setting aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 03.08.2023 and
hear the matter on merit in the presence of
counsel of the Applicant/Petitioner.

(b) And/or to stay the effect and
operation of the order, judgment dated
03.08.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition (A) No. 7428 of 2023 (Judgement
dated 03.08.2023 Reserved on 23.05.2023
and Delivered on 03.08.2023) till the
Reserved on 23.05.2023 and Delivered on
03.08.2023) final disposal of the present
Review Application, failing thereby will
result in express prejudice and irreparable
loss and injury to the Applicant/Petitioner.

(c) And/or to allow to bring on
record certain legal documents which are
germane and which after due diligence
could not be filed at the time of passing of
order and judgment by this Hon'ble Court
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (A) No. 7428
of 2023, Reserved on 23.05.2023 and
Delivered on 03.08.2023.

(d)And/ or to summon the entire
record of the Petition/Writ (A) No. 7428 of
2023.

(e) And/or to summon the entire
lower court record as well pertaining to
both proceedings- under section 10 of U.P.
Act No. 16 of 2021 bearing case No. 696 of