Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17461 Court No. - 6 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 30 of 2025 Applicant :- Neha Awasthi Opposite Party :- Distt. Election Officer/D.M. Sitapur Office Situated Collectorate Court Premises,Sitapur And 17 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Lalta Prasad Misra,Asit Srivastava,Murli Manohar Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra and Shri Murli Manohar Srivastava, learned counsel for the review-applicant, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel assisted by Shri Akber Ahmed, Shri Rajeev Srivastava, Shri Ankit Tripathi and Ms. Shheiya Agarawal, learned counsel for respondent No.7, Shri Vimal Srivastava, Additional A.G., Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, C.S.C. and Pankaj Khare, A.C.S.C. and Shri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The review application has been filed seeking a review of the judgement dated 03.03.2025 passed by this Court. In support of the review application, Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant states that while passing the judgement certain errors which are apparent on the face of the record have occasioned, which warrant interference through the present review application, which may be allowed. To substantiate his submission, it is argued that while recording the facts in paragraph 4 of the judgement, this Court had noticed three different number of votes shown in three different documents. According to him, the mention of the votes shown as 67841 in the communication was not statutory record and thus, could not have been pleaded in support of the election petition filed by the election petitioner. He further argues that recording of paragraph 20 and 21 are prima facie erroneous inasmuch as the State as well as elected candidate had specifically denied in the written statement filed. He further argues that in paragraph 24, the directions given by this Court are required to be clarified, inasmuch as, in the directions, consideration of the pleadings of the petitioner alone and the evidence filed by him alone has been directed and no mention of considering the defence is directed. In light of the said, it is argued that the judgement dated 03.03.2025 suffers from error apparent on the face of the record, thus requires review. Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for respondent denies all the arguments as raised by Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the applicant. He specifically argues that in the pleadings filed in the election petition, which is on record, in paragraph 11, 12 and 13, it was specifically pleaded that in the communication received with regard to the number of the votes polled, the number of the votes are shown 67841, which was duly supported by the documents. Similarly in paragraph 12 and 13 (wrongly numbered as paragraph 11), it was specifically pleaded with regard to two other numbers of votes polled. He draws my attention to the written statement filed by the returning candidate as well as the State. In the written statement filed by the State in the election petition, in paragraph 11, it was simply stated that the contents are not admissible, see additional pleas. Similarly, he draws my attention to the written statement filed by the returning candidate in paragraph 11, wherein it was simply stated that the contents are denied and stated that the mention of number of the votes were based upon the information received telephonically cannot be considered as conclusive. In light of the said pleadings, he argues that there is no specific denial that the document relied upon by the petitioner was in any way wrong or factually incorrect. He further argues that this Court while passing the judgement on 03.03.2025 had simply remanded the matter to be decided based upon the pleadings and no final decision has been given by this Court and thus, there is no loss caused to the applicant entitling him to move an application for review. Considering the submissions made at Bar, at the outset, it is made clear that when the matter was decided, Shri Murli Manohar Srivastava had appeared for the respondent. The judgement was dictated in the open Court. All the arguments as proposed to be argued today was neither raised nor canvassed. Thus, the review is to be confined only to the error apparent on the face of record. The only clarification is required in paragraph 24 of the judgement to the effect that while deciding the application, in terms of the directions issued, by the District Judge, he will also consider the reply filed by the State as well as the returning candidate in the light of specific provisions contained under Order VIII CPC to ascertain as to whether they would fall within the meaning of actual or evasive denial. The District Judge shall now pass fresh orders in terms of the directions within a period of two weeks from today. None of the parties shall seek adjournment before the District Judge. The review application is disposed of. Order Date :- 26.3.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench