# Jai Singh v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1370
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 5 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-50057
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Civil Law - Review Application- filed by a
counsel other than the one who argued
the
petition-practice
deprecated-valid
ground
for
dismissal
of
the
review
application-even otherwise the application
lacks merit-no error apparent on face of
record-plea of applicability of amended
bye laws never pleaded before the writ
court-plea of no locus standi taken for the
first
time
in
review
application-not
maintainable-scope of review application
is
very
limited-review
application
dismissed. (Paras 23, 24 and 27)
HELD:
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in T. N. Electricity Board (Supra)
and by this Court in U. P. State Agro Industrial
Corporation Ltd. versus Anil Kumar Mishra and
Vinita Bhatnagar versus Union of India (Supra),
the review application filed by the opposite
party no.4 Tej Narayan Soni through Sri Raj
Vikram Singh, Advocate, who had not filed the
pleadings in the Writ Proceedings and who had
not advanced submissions on behalf of the
opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni at any
stage and who filed his Vakalatnama in the Writ
Petition when nothing was pending before the
Writ Court, cannot be entertained and the same
is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
(Para 23)

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.T. N. Electricity Board Vs N. Raju Reddiar,
(1997) 9 SCC 736

## Text

1370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. When this Court examined this
case on facts and law, it is decipherable that
the Investigating Agency undoubtedly has
power to proceed with further investigation
and the prior approval for proceeding with
such investigation is not required under the
law. Of course, time and again, it has also
been the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
therefore, the supplementary case diary
appending the order 3.3.2022, has rightly
been submitted by the Investigating Officer
before the trial court.

24. So far as the order dated 3.3.2022
passed
by
the
review
authority
is
concerned, the matter pertains to year 2010
and about 12 years have been passed.
Further, it is settled that the grant of
sanction is merely an administrative
function and sanctioning authority is
required to reach over satisfaction, at the
first hand that acts and facts would
constitute the offence and, now, after lapse
of 12 years, it would not be just and fair to
initiate proceeding of grant of sanction to
put the applicants and other side for another
innings of litigations and keep the trial
pending indefinite long period.

25. It has been enuntiated that there is
distinction between 'absence of sanction'
and 'invalidity of sanction'. Absence of
sanction can be raised and agitated at the
very inception but the invalidity or
illegality of the sanction is to be raised
during the trial.

26. Admittedly, the sanction was
granted on 3.8.2010 and, thus, prima facie
it is not a case of absence of sanction but
the applicants-accused persons have raised
certain illegality and invalidity in grant of
sanction for prosecution and those are three
folds. Firstly, the Review authority was not
in existence at the time of grant of sanction;
secondly, there was no material before the
sanctioning authority; and thirdly Section
173 (8) is not meant for filling the lacunaes.
All the pleas are with respect to invalidity
said to be creeping in the impugned order
of sanction. As has been discussed in
preceding paragraphs, the instant matter is
not a case of absence of sanction and if
there is any alleged invalidity prevailing in
the order of sanction, the same can be
raised/assailed before the trial court.

27. In view of the aforesaid
submissions and discussions, this Court
does not find any merit in this application.

28. Consequently, the application is
hereby dismissed.

29. However, the applicants-accused
persons are at liberty to raise their
grievance with respect to the invalidity of
the sanction, if any, before the trial court
concerned.
----------

(2023) 4 ILRA 1370
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 5 of
2022

Jai Singh ...Applicant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Raj Vikram Singh, In Person

Counsel for the Respondents:
4 All. Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1371
Civil Law - Review Application- filed by a
counsel other than the one who argued
the
petition-practice
deprecated-valid
ground
for
dismissal
of
the
review
application-even otherwise the application
lacks merit-no error apparent on face of
record-plea of applicability of amended
bye laws never pleaded before the writ
court-plea of no locus standi taken for the
first
time
in
review
application-not
maintainable-scope of review application
is
very
limited-review
application
dismissed. (Paras 23, 24 and 27)
HELD:
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in T. N. Electricity Board (Supra)
and by this Court in U. P. State Agro Industrial
Corporation Ltd. versus Anil Kumar Mishra and
Vinita Bhatnagar versus Union of India (Supra),
the review application filed by the opposite
party no.4 Tej Narayan Soni through Sri Raj
Vikram Singh, Advocate, who had not filed the
pleadings in the Writ Proceedings and who had
not advanced submissions on behalf of the
opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni at any
stage and who filed his Vakalatnama in the Writ
Petition when nothing was pending before the
Writ Court, cannot be entertained and the same
is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
(Para 23)

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.T. N. Electricity Board Vs N. Raju Reddiar,
(1997) 9 SCC 736

2. Review Petition Defective No. - 281 of 2008
titled U. P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd.
Vs Anil Kumar Mishra decided on 30.03.2012

3.Vinita Bhatnagar Vs U.O.I. 2018 SCC OnLine
All 6411

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

Order on C.M. Application No. 1 of
2022:

1.
This
is
an
application
for
condonation of delay in filing the review
application. The application is supported by
an affidavit, in which reasons for delay
have been explained sufficiently.

2. Accordingly, the application is
allowed. Delay, if any, in moving review
application is hereby condoned.

Order
on
memo
of
Review
Application:

3. The instant application has been
filed seeking review of the judgment and
order dated 29.08.2019, passed by a
Division Bench of this Court consisting of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal
and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jaspreet Singh in
Writ-C No.13864 of 2019, with the
following description of the array of
parties: -

"Jai Singh son of K. S. Arya R/o House
no. B-216, Rajajipuram Lucknow

........Petitioner
VERSUS

1. State of U.P. through its
Principal Secretary Housing and Urban
Planning U.P. Secretariat (Govt.) IIIrd
Floor, Bapu Bhawan Lucknow.

2. Housing Commissioner, U.P.
Awas Vikas Parishad 104 Mahatma Gandhi
Marg, Lucknow

3. Executive Engineer, Nirman
Khand-12, II Floor, Vrindavan Yojna
Telibagh, Lucknow

4. Tej Narayan Soni son of
unknown R/o House no.B-218, Rajajipuram
Lucknow.
.......Opposite Parties."
1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. No Vakalatnama has been filed with
the review application and in the index, it is
mentioned that "Vakalatnama already on
record". Sri. Raj Vikram Singh Advocate
had filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the
opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni in
Writ-C No.13864 of 2019 on 03.01.2022
alongwith I.A. No. 22 of 2022, which was
supported by an affidavit stating that earlier
he had filed a modification application
through Ms. Pushpila Bisht, Advocate and
the matter was argued by Sri Jaideep
Narayan Mathur, Senior Advocate; that the
opposite party no.4 had paid fee to both of
them and now he wanted to file a review
application, for which he has engaged Sri
Raj
Vikram
Singh,
Advocate.
The
Vakalatnama in favour of Sri. Raj Vikram
Singh Advocate was filed when the Writ
Petition as well as the subsequent review
application filed by Jai Singh and an
application for modification / recall of the
order dated 31.08.2021 filed by the
opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni had
already been decided and nothing was
pending before this Court.

5. Sri. Jai Singh, who has wrongly
been described as the petitioner in the
Review Petition, raised a preliminary
objection before this Court that he has not
filed the review application and he has
wrongly been described as the review
applicant.

6. On 07.04.2022 Sri. Raj Vikram
Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni, had sought
time to move an application to correct the
array of parties. He filed an application for
correction in the memo of parties seeking
permission to mention the name of Tej
Narayan Soni as applicant in the review
application. The aforesaid application was
allowed by means of an order dated
25.07.2022 and a direction was issued for
carrying out the necessary corrections
within ten days. However, the learned
Counsel for the opposite party no. 4 Tej
Narayan Soni did not incorporate the
corrections in the memo of the review
application and the description of the
petitioner, mentioned in the review petition
is still ''Jai Singh'. Even during hearing of
the review application, when an objection
to this effect was raised by Sri. Jai Singh,
the learned Counsel for the opposite party
no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni did not make any
prayer for extension of time granted to him
for carrying out the necessary corrections
in the array of parties. Therefore, the
review application as framed, is liable to be
rejected for non-prosecution by noncompliance of the order dated 25.07.2022.

7. However, we proceed to examine
the review on its merits in the interest of
justice.

8. The aforesaid Writ Petition was
filed by the Petitioner Jai Singh seeking a
direction to the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad for demolition of the illegal
constructions raised in the house of the
opposite party no.4 - Tej Narayan Soni.

9. The Avas Evam Vikas Parishad had
filed a counter affidavit in the Writ Petition
stating that some parts of the construction
had been marked by the officials as
compoundable and some other parts were
marked as non-compoundable in the
compounding map. The review applicant
had submitted a compounding map and the
Parishad had already indicated about the
compoundable
and
non-compoundable
portions of the structure. In case the
opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni fails
to
demolish
the
non-compoundable
structure and pay the compounding fee, the
4 All. Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1373
Parishad will take suitable action against
him.

10. The opposite party no. 4 in the
Writ Petition Tej Narayan Soni had put in
appearance
by
filing
a
Vakalatnama
executed in favour of Sri. Suresh Kumar
Singh and Sri. Umesh Singh Advocates.
Thereafter he had engaged Sri. Balkeshwar
Srivastava
and
Sri.
Pankaj
Kumar
Srivastava Advocates. He had filed a
counter affidavit through Sri. Balkeshwar
Srivastava, Advocate.

11. After taking into consideration the
aforesaid
pleadings,
this
Court
had
disposed off the Writ Petition by means of
an order dated 29.08.2019 observing that
the matter was being taken by the Parishad
and at this stage, the Court was not inclined
to pass any order or direction to demolish
the portion which is non-compoundable
and this Court had put on record its
expectation that the Parishad will take
appropriate decision in accordance with
law.

12.
The
aforesaid
order
was
challenged by Sri Jai Singh - the petitioner
in Writ C No.13864 of 2019, by filing
Review Application No. 153668 of 2019.
The review application was filed with delay
and the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan
Soni had filed an application for rejection
of application for condonation of delay in
filing
the
Review
Application
an
Application
for
dismissal
of
review
application, through Sri. Pankaj Kumar
Srivastava, Advocate and a supplementary
counter affidavit was also filed through the
aforesaid Advocate.

13. The aforesaid review petition was
dismissed by means of an order dated
31.08.2021 by holding that the order dated
29.08.2019 did not suffer from any error
apparent on the face of the record.
However, while dismissing the review
application this Court observed that once
an undertaking had been given by the
opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni that
he will remove the non-compoundable
portion of the building which had been
illegally constructed, then that undertaking
shall be honored by him and he shall
immediately
remove
the
illegal
constructions. This Court further observed
that since the opposite party no. 4 has not
removed the said construction, therefore,
Avas Vikas Parishad shall immediately
remove the illegal construction which is
non-compoundable
and
no
further
opportunity shall be given to the opposite
party no. 4 to remove the construction.
Although,
the
review
petition
was
dismissed by the aforesaid order, the Court
directed that an action taken report be
submitted before the Court.

14. On 16.09.2021, the opposite party
no. 4 Sri. Tej Narayan Soni filed
C.M.An.No. 120260 of 2021 through Sri.
Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for
modification / recall of the order dated
31.08.2021 passed in the Writ Petition, to
the extent it directs the Awas Ewam Vikas
Parishad to immediately remove the illegal
construction which is non compoundable.

15. Subsequently the opposite party
no.
4
engaged
Ms.
Pushpila
Bisht
Advocate, who assisted Sri. J. N. Mathur
Senior Advocate. At the time of hearing of
the
aforesaid
application
for
modification/recall of the order dated
31.08.2021, it was submitted on behalf of
the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni
that in the order dated 31.08.2021 it was
provided that the unauthorized construction
which can be removed, is to be removed,
1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, he has got the construction
removed which could be removed and the
portion of unauthorized construction which
could not be removed, was not removed
otherwise the entire building will collapse.

16. The aforesaid application for
modification / recall of the order dated
31.08.2021 was rejected by means of an
order dated 29.09.2021 by observing that
"once an undertaking was given to remove
the unauthorized construction and that
unauthorized
construction
was
not
removed, the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
who is the overall controlling authority has
been directed to remove the illegal
construction. We do not filed any reasons to
modify the order dated 31.08.2021 as we
cannot
permit
any
unauthorized
construction to continue to exist."

17. The opposite party no. 4 Tej
Narayan Soni, challenged the aforesaid
order dated 31.08.2021 by filing Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13769 of 2021.
At the time of hearing for the aforesaid
S.L.P., the learned counsel representing him
submitted before the

Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
that
whatever could be demolished in terms of
the undertaking given before the High
Court, has already been demolished and an
appropriate application will be moved
before
the
High
Court
seeking
modification. Subsequently, the aforesaid
S.L.P. has been dismissed as withdrawn on
08.02.2022, without any liberty having
been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
for availing any other remedy.

18. During pendency of the aforesaid
S.L.P., the instant application was been
filed on 10.01.2022 by the opposite party
no.4 Tej Narayan Soni, through Sri Raj
Vikram Singh, Advocate, seeking review of
the order dated 29.08.2019.

19. In T. N. Electricity Board v. N.
Raju Reddiar, (1997) 9 SCC 736, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the
practice of filing successive applications
after decision of the case and that too, by
engaging different Counsel. The aforesaid
judgment is being reproduced below:

"1. It is a sad spectacle that a
new practice unbecoming and not worthy
of or conducive to the profession is
cropping up. Mr Mariaputham, Advocateon-Record had filed vakalatnama for the
petitioner-opposite party when the special
leave petition was filed. After the matter
was disposed of, Mr V. Balachandran,
Advocate had filed a petition for review.
That was also dismissed by this Court on
24-4-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr
S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file
the
present
application
styled
as
"application for clarification", on the
specious plea that the order is not clear
and unambiguous. When an appeal/special
leave petition is dismissed, except in rare
cases where error of law or fact is apparent
on the record, no review can be filed; that
too by the Advocate-on-Record who neither
appeared nor was party in the main case. It
is salutary to note that the court spends
valuable time in deciding a case. Review
petition is not, and should not be, an
attempt for hearing the matter again on
merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in
recent time, a practice to file such review
petitions as a routine; that too, with
change of counsel, without obtaining
consent of the -on-Record at earlier stage.
This is not conducive to healthy practice
of the Bar which has the responsibility to
maintain
the
salutary
practice
of
profession. In Review Petition No. 2670 of
4 All. Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1375
1996 in CA No. 1867 of 1992, a Bench of
three Judges to which one of us, K.
Ramaswamy, J., was a member, had held as
under:

"The
record
of
the
appeal
indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the
Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was
heard and decided on merits. The review
petition has been filed by Shri Prabir
Chowdhury who was neither an arguing
counsel when the appeal was heard nor
was he present at the time of arguments. It
is unknown on what basis he has written
the grounds in the review petition as if it is
a rehearing of an appeal against our order.
He did not confine to the scope of review. It
would not be in the interest of the
profession to permit such practice. That
apart, he has not obtained ''No Objection
Certificate' from the Advocate-on-Record in
the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry
had informed him of the requirement for
doing so. Filing of the ''No Objection
Certificate' would be the basis for him to
come on record. Otherwise, the Advocateon-Record is answerable to the Court. The
failure to obtain the ''No Objection
Certificate' from the erstwhile counsel has
disentitled him to file the review petition.
Even otherwise, the review petition has no
merits. It is an attempt to reargue the
matter on merits.

On these grounds, we dismiss the
review petition."

2.Once the petition for review is
dismissed, no application for clarification
should be filed, much less with the change
of the Advocate-on-Record. This practice
of changing the advocates and filing
repeated petitions should be deprecated
with
a
heavy
hand
for
purity
of
administration of law and salutary and
healthy practice.

3. The application is dismissed
with exemplary costs of Rs 20,000 as it is
an abuse of the process of court in
derogation of healthy practice. The amount
should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal
Aid Services Committee within four months
from today. If the amount is not paid, it
should be recovered treating this direction
as decree of the Court by the Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee. The
Registry is directed to communicate this
order to the Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee."

20. In Review Petition Defective No. -
281 of 2008 titled U. P. State Agro
Industrial Corporation Ltd. versus Anil
Kumar Mishra decided on 30.03.2012,
this Court dismissed a review petition filed
by a subsequently engaged counsel. The
relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment
is reproduced below: -

"Shri Umesh Chandra, learned
senior Counsel has raised a preliminary
objection that in view of law laid down by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board and Another vs. N.
Raju Reddiar and Another (1997) 9
Supreme Court Cases 736, the review
petition is not maintainable as Shri Manoj
Singh, Advocate who has filed the review
petition was neither appeared as a counsel
on behalf of the review petitioner nor
argued on their behalf in the writ petition.
So, the review petition is not maintainable,
liable to be dismissed on the said ground.

* * *

Applying the abovesaid settled
proposition of law in the present case, I
don't find any good ground and reason
taken by review petitioner in the matter in
question for review of judgment and order
dated 3.12.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.
1827 (SS) of 1997, and also in view of the
1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in
the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
and Another vs. N. Raju Reddiar and
Another (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases
736, same is liable to be dismissed.

21. The aforesaid decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by a
Division Bench of this Court in Vinita
Bhatnagar versus Union of India 2018
SCC OnLine All 6411, in which this Court
held that: -

"It is well-settled that a review
application ought not to have been filed by
a Counsel who has not argued the matter
but ought to have been filed by the same
Counsel who has earlier argued the matter.
In T. N. Electricity Board v. N. Raju
Reddiar (1997) 9 SCC 736 the Apex Court
has deprecated the practice of arguing the
matter by one Counsel and review by
another Counsel and has observed that the
review application ought to have been filed
by the, same Counsel who has argued the
matter."

22. In the present case also, earlier the
review petitioner had initially engaged Sri.
Suresh Kumar Singh and Sri. Umesh Singh
Advocates. Thereafter he had engaged Sri.
Balkeshwar Srivastava and Sri. Pankaj
Kumar Srivastava Advocates. He had filed
a counter affidavit through Sri. Balkeshwar
Srivastava. Sri Jai Singh - the petitioner in
Writ C No.13864 of 2019, had filed Review
Application No. 153668 of 2019 and the
opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni had
filed an application for rejection of
application for condonation of delay in
filing the review petition, an Application
for dismissal of review application and a
supplementary counter affidavit through
Sri. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate.
On 16.09.2021, the opposite party no. 4 Sri.
Tej Narayan Soni had filed C.M.An.No.
120260 of 2021 through Sri. Pankaj Kumar
Srivastava, Advocate for modification /
recall of the order dated 31.08.2021 passed
in the Writ Petition. Subsequently the
opposite party no. 4 engaged Ms. Pushpila
Bisht Advocate, who assisted Sri. J. N.
Mathur Senior Advocate. The application
for modification / recall of the order dated
31.08.2021 was rejected by means of an
order dated 29.09.2021. The opposite party
no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni, challenged the
aforesaid order dated 31.08.2021 by filing
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13769 of
2021, but during pendency of the aforesaid
S.L.P., on 10.01.2022 the opposite party
no.4 Tej Narayan Soni filed the instant
application through Sri Raj Vikram Singh,
Advocate, seeking review of the order
dated 29.08.2019

23. In view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. N.
Electricity Board (Supra) and by this
Court in U. P. State Agro Industrial
Corporation Ltd. versus Anil Kumar
Mishra and Vinita Bhatnagar versus
Union of India (Supra), the review
application filed by the opposite party no.4
Tej Narayan Soni through Sri Raj Vikram
Singh, Advocate, who had not filed the
pleadings in the Writ Proceedings and who
had not advanced submissions on behalf of
the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni
at any stage and who filed his Vakalatnama
in the Writ Petition when nothing was
pending before the Writ Court, cannot be
entertained and the same is liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone.

24. Moreover, earlier the opposite
party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni had filed an
application for modification / recall of the
order dated 31.08.2021 passed in the Writ
Petition, which was rejected by means of
4 All. Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1377
an order dated 29.09.2021. The opposite
party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni, challenged
the aforesaid order dated 31.08.2021 by
filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
13769 of 2021 and the aforesaid S.L.P. has
been
dismissed
as
withdrawn
on
08.02.2022, without any liberty having
been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
for availing any other remedy. In substance,
the prayer made in the Review Petition is
the same as was made in the application for
Modification / recall of the order. For this
reason also, the Review Petition does not
deserve to be entertained in view of the law
laid down in T. N. Electricity Board
(Supra) that "Once the petition for review is
dismissed, no application for clarification
should be filed, much less with the change
of the Advocate-on-Record. This practice of
changing the advocates and filing repeated
petitions should be deprecated with a heavy
hand for purity of administration of law
and salutary and healthy practice."

25. However, we proceed to examine
the Review Petition to ascertain as to
whether any failure of justice would be
caused by dismissal of the Review
Petition.

26. The first ground pressed by the
learned counsel for the review petitioner is
that the petitioner of the Writ Petition has
got no locus-standi as he is not the
registered owner of House No. 216. This
plea is not open to be raised for the first
time in a review petition because a review
is not a rehearing in disguise.

27. The scope of review jurisdiction is
no longer res-integra and it is well settled
through a catena of decisions and it has
been summarized Vinita Bhatnagar versus
Union of India (Supra) in the following
manner: -

"3. An application for review
cannot be treated to be an opportunity to
argue the case on merits afresh. In the garb
of a review application re-argument on
merits of the case cannot be allowed.

4. In Thungabhadra Industries
Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
AIR 1964 SC 1372 the Court said:

"A review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard and corrected, but lies
only for patent error."

5. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma
v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC
389 the Court said:

"... there is nothing in Article 226
of the Constitution to preclude a High
Court from exercising the power of review
which inheres in every Court of plenary
jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of
justice or to correct grave and palpable
errors committed by it. But, there are
definitive limits to the exercise of the power
of review. The power of review may be
exercised on the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence was not within
the knowledge of the person seeking the
review or could not be produced by him at
the time when the order was made; it may
be exercised where some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record is found;
it may also be exercised on any analogous
ground. But, it may not be exercised on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on
merits. That would be the province of a
Court of, Appeal. A power of review is not
to be confused with appellate powers which
may enable an Appellate Court to correct
all manner of errors committed by the
Subordinate Court."

6. Again, in Meera Bhanja v.
Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC
170 while quoting with approval the above
passage from Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma
1378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
v. Abhiram Pishak Shartn (supra), the
Court
once
again
held
that
renew
proceedings are not by way of an appeal
and have to be strictly confined to the
scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1,
C.P.C.

7. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri
Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715 it was held that an
error, which is not self evident and has to
be detected by process of reasoning, can
hardly be said to be error apparent on the
face of the record justifying the Court to
exercise powers of review in exercise of
review jurisdiction.

8. In Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai,
(2002) 48 ALR 331 (SC) the Apex Court
has observed about limited scope of
judicial intervention at the time of review of
the judgment and said:

"The limitations on exercise of
the power of review are well-settled. The
first
and
foremost
requirement
of
entertaining a review petition is that the
order, review of which is sought, suffers
from any error apparent on the face of the
order and permitting the order to stand will
lead to failure of justice. In the absence of
any such error, finality attached to the
judgment/order cannot be disturbed."

9. Thus, Review is not an appeal
in disguise. Rehearing of the matter is
impermissible in the garb of review. It is an
exception to the general rule that once a
judgment is signed or pronounced, it
should not be altered. In Lily Thomas v.
Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 : AIR
2000 SC 1650, the Court said that power of
review can be exercised for correction of a
mistake and not to substitute a new. Such
powers can be exercised within limits of the
statute dealing with the exercise of power.
The aforesaid view is reiterated in
Inderchand Jain v. Motilal (2009) 76 ALR
782 (SC). In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati,
(2013) 8 SCC 320 the Court said:

"19. Review proceedings are not
by way of an appeal and have to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order
XLVII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. In review
jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the
view of the judgment cannot be the ground
for invoking the same. As long as the point
is already dealt with and answered, the
parties are not entitled to challenge the
impugned judgment in the guise that an
alternative view is possible under the
review jurisdiction.

Summary of the Principles:

20. Thus, in view of the above, the
following
grounds
of
review
are
maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be
maintainable:

(i)
Discovery
of
new
and
important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not
within knowledge of the petitioner or could
not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on
the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient
reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju
Ram v. Neki,AIR 1922 PC 112 and
approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526, to
mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at
least analogous to those specified in the
rule". The same principles have been
reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur
Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8
SCC 337

22.2. When the review will not be
maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and
overruled argument is not enough to reopen
concluded adjudications.

(ii)
Minor
mistakes
of
inconsequential import.
4 All. Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1379

(iii) Review proceedings cannot
be equated with the original hearing of the
case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable
unless the material error, manifest on the
face of the order, undermines its soundness
or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard and corrected but lies
only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two
views on the subject cannot be a ground for
review.

(vii) The error apparent on the
face of the record should not be an error
which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii)
The
appreciation
of
evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the Appellate Court, it cannot be
permitted to be advanced in the review
petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable
when the same relief sought at the time of
arguing
the
main matter
had
been
negatived."

28. Examining the facts of the present
case in light of the law regarding scope of
review, we find that the petitioner of the
Writ Petition brought certain facts before
this Court by filing Writ Petition No.13864
(MB) of 2019 and after inviting counter
affidavit, this Court was satisfied that some
illegal constructions have been raised by
the present review petitioner - some of
which some are compoundable and some
are non- compoundable and the Writ
Petition was disposed of without issuing
any direction, by merely expressing an
expectation that the Parishad will take a
decision in accordance with law. Whether
the petitioner of the aforesaid Writ Petition
is the owner of House No.216 or not,
would not make any difference on the
legality or otherwise of the structures raised
by the review petitioner and we do not find
any error, what to say about an error which
is apparent on the face of the record, in the
order dated 29.08.2019 disposing of the
Writ Petition without issuing any direction
to demolish the premises which is noncompoundable and merely recording an
expectation that the Parishad will take
appropriate decision in accordance with the
law.

29. The second ground pressed by the
learned counsel for the review applicant is
that earlier the Compounding Bye-laws
2010 were in force which required a larger
area to be left as set-back, including side
set-back and back set-back. In the year
2020, a new Compounding Scheme has
been framed, under which the requirement
of side set-back and rear set-back has been
done away with. The learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that the
constructions
in
question
are
compoundable under the amended Scheme
and the same are not liable to be
demolished.

30.
Replying
to
the
aforesaid
submissions, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, the
learned counsel for the U.P. Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad has submitted that operation
of the Amended Rules of has been stayed
by means of an order dated 07.10.2020
passed by this Court sitting at Allahabad in
Writ-C No.15757 of 2020. Sri Chandra has
very fairly submitted that under the
amended Scheme, the review application
would be entitled to some benefits as the
compoundable area under the amended
Rules will be larger than that under the unamended Rules.

31. Be that as it may, the petitioner has
already filed Writ C No.1362 of 2022 and
1380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on 05.03.2022 a coordinate Bench of this
Court has passed the following order in that
Writ Petition: -

"Accordingly, in our opinion, the
review application filed by the petitioner
needs to be heard at an early date.

Having regard to the totality of
the facts and circumstances of the case, we
find it appropriate to provide that till the
next date of listing, pursuant to the
impugned notice dated 02.03.2022, no
demolition/eviction in respect of House
No.B-218,
Sector
17,
Rajajipuram,
Lucknow shall take place."

32.
Thus,
the
validity
of
the
demolition notice dated 02.03.2022 is
under question before this Court in Writ C
No.1362 of 2022 and the petitioner has
already been granted interim protection in
the aforesaid

Writ Petition and these grounds
cannot be raised as a ground of review for
the order dated 29.08.2019, passed in Writ
C No.13684 of 2019, wherein the review
petitioner had filed a counter affidavit and
the plea of amendment in the relevant
Rules had not been raised and, therefore,
this Court has not decided that plea. Failure
of this Court to decide a plea that has not
been raised, cannot be termed as an error
apparent on the face of the record.

33. As such, having considered the
submissions made on behalf of the parties,
we find ourselves unable to agree with the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the review petitioner and we do not find
any error, much less an error apparent on
the face of the record, in the order dated
29.08.2019, passed in Writ C No.13864 of
2019.

34. The review petition/ application
lacks merit and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1380
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1292 of 2021

Ravi Shankar Saini & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mukteshwar Mishra, Sri Abhay Nath
Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Onkar Singh

Criminal Law-Application under Section
482 CrPC- quashing of proceedings-under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act-
compromise deed executed between the
parties-withdrawal of all cases between
them- Petition for mutual divorce under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriages Act,
1956 is pending before the Family Court-
cooling off period of six months waived- in
light of compromise between the partiescriminal
proceedings
under
challenge
quashed-Application allowed.

HELD:
High lighting the aforesaid facts, learned
counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the
State submit that they have no objection if this
Court may direct the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Faizabad to decide the petition filed
under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 expeditiously within short period, waiving
the cooling off period of six months in view of
the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme