HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 33 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the review-applicant. 2. The present review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 10.02.2025, subsequent to the filing of the review application, a supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that the review application filed may be treated as a counter affidavit in the writ petition and the statement given earlier when the writ petition was decided, may be permitted to be withdrawn and the review application be treated as counter affidavit. 3. In the review application, it has been stated that the review is sought on the following grounds. Dealing with the said grounds, the first ground is that, the statutory provision contained under Section 60 of the Easements Act have escaped the consideration of this Court, which provides that where the licensee acting upon the license has executed work of a permanent character, the execution on the said agreements makes a license irrevocable. The said pleadings were neither raised before the executing court nor before this Court, even if the said pleadings is taken into consideration for a license to become irrevocable, it is essential that suitable proceedings are initiated under the Easements Act and the declaration is sought. In the present case, the property was owned by the director on which, the hospital was constructed, which was done by the company, no such suit has been filed by the company against the director claiming their irrevocable Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Chandra Agarwal, Anand Sharma, Pankaj Kumar, Vijay Lal Saroj, Vinay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhajaram Charitable Trust Thru. Chairman Captain Dilawar Singh Sangwan(Retd) .....Applicant(s) Ms. Gazal Srivastava And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) license rights. The review applicant, is a third party and it is not open for him to take such a defence without there being any pleadings or declaration to that effect by any competent court of law. 4. The next ground pleaded is that, the statutory provisions contained under Section 166(5) of the Companies Act have also escaped consideration of this Court, which provides that the director of the company shall not achieve or attempt to achieve undue gain or advantage either to himself or to his relatives/partners and if the director is found guilty of making such undue gain, he shall be liable to pay an equal amount of that gain to the company. The said argument was also not raised in the execution proceedings or in any other proceedings. The said ground is also not available as, the decree in question was passed only against the company, that defence at best could have been raised in the suit, which was filed by the review applicant. In the absence of there being any decree against the director and any material to demonstrate that any gain was achieved by the director, the said argument also deserves to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. 5. The third ground raised is that, a principle of undue enrichment have escaped the consideration of this Court. The said ground was neither raised nor is available, nothing has been stated as to who stands unduly enriched. Thus, the said ground also merits rejection and is rejected. 6. The next ground pleaded is that, a crucial factor has escaped the attention of this Court that the J.D. company had taken commercial loan from the bank for construction by mortgaging the said plot, which has been paid by the J.D. company. The said plea also does not benefit the applicant as, neither the same was pleaded nor was a decree passed against the director, by means of the order sought to be reviewed, this Court has kept it open for the decree holder to execute the decree against the company. In view thereof, the review application deserved to be dismissed on that ground also. 7. The next ground pleaded is that, Chairman/Director of the J.D. company cannot defraud the creditors on the ground of technicalities, the said ground could not be a ground for review in as much as, the decree itself was not against the director of the company and all these issues could not have been decided in the execution proceedings. 8. The next ground has been taken that the heirs of the director were the petitioners in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and CMRA No. 33 of 2025 2 cannot escape from liability, the said ground also merits rejection as merely because, the petition was filed, the same ipso facto would not transfer liabilities of a company to that of the director or his successors. 9. The next ground pleaded is that the judgment dated 07.12.2022 passed in Civil Revision No. 47 of 2022 cannot be declared illegal in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the said ground also merits rejection as, by means of the judgment, this Court had considered the judgment and had not declared the same to be illegal. No other ground has been pleaded warranting interference, the review application is also not maintainable in view of the restricted scope of review prescribed under Section 114 of the C.P.C. 10. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. September 3, 2025 Praveen CMRA No. 33 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench