Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93805 Court No. - 3 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 450 of 2024 Applicant :- Malti Devi Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar,Prabhakar Awasthi,Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J. Heard the counsel for the applicant. The present review application has been filed for review of the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by this Court in Writ - C No. 31341 of 2022. The review application is beyond time by 682 days. The grounds stated in the delay condonation application for condonation of delay do not satisfactorily explain the delay of 682 days. However, I have also looked into the merits of the review application. The review has been sought on the ground that the recital in the order dated 17.10.2022 that vide his order dated 18.3.2021, the Assistant Registrar refused to recall his order dated 12.6.2014 is an error apparent on the face of record in as much as no order dated 12.6.2014 had been passed by the Assistant Registrar and the said fact would be evident from the order dated 18.3.2021 itself. I have perused the order dated 18.3.2021. The contention of the petitioner / applicant so far as the contents of the order dated 18.3.2021 is concerned appear to be correct and the recital in the order dated 17.10.2022 referring to the order dated 12.6.2014 appears to be erroneous. Through his order dated 18.3.2021, the Assistant Registrar had refused to interfere in the list dated 12.6.2014. The list dated 12.6.2014 was a list of members of the general body of the society. The writ petition was dismissed on ground of availability of alternative remedy after noting that the issue raised in the writ petition related to membership of the general body of the society which is an issue of fact and for which writ proceedings are not the appropriate remedy. It was held that the petitioner had the remedy to file a suit before the appropriate Court. In view of the aforesaid, the erroneous recital in the order dated 17.10.2022 making reference to some order dated 12.6.2014 does not affect the decision, i.e., the final order of this Court and thus is not a sufficient ground to review the order dated 17.10.2022. It has also been argued that there is no list dated 12.6.2014 in the office of the Registrar, therefore, in any case, the order dated 17.10.2022 may be reviewed. The contention of the applicant is not acceptable. The issue in the writ petition related to membership of the general body of the society because of which this Court had refrained to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The existence or validity of the list dated 12.6.2014 would also be question of fact which can be decided only on evidence. The contention of the petitioner, even if true, does not affect the nature of the dispute and the discretion of the Court to relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy available to her. The review application is dismissed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Satyam Digitally signed by :- SATYAM AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad