Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18875 Court No. - 6 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 54 of 2025 Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma And Another Opposite Party :- Ankit Kumar And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Gopal Tripathi,Shivam Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 14.02.2025. 3. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that after passing of the judgment and order dated 14.02.2025, it has come to the knowledge of the applicant that the plaintiff was not lessee of the property, for which, a suit was filed and was decreed. Reliance is placed upon the Government records which was got translated and based upon the said, it is argued that the review is being argued on the ground that subsequent developments has taken place in the form of documents, which go to the root of the matter and thus the review application should be allowed. 4. The application is also accompanied by a delay condonation application. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay in filing the review application is condoned. 5. On the merits, a perusal of the plaint reveals that sometimes in the year 1971-72, the plaintiff to the suit had given the property in question on the condition that whenever the plaintiff requires, the property shall be vacated and shall be handed over. No defence as is being sought to be raised was taken by the applicant in the said suit, in the appeal preferred thereafter, in the second appeal preferred thereafter or even before the Supreme Court. This Court while passing the judgment dated 14.02.2025 had observed that the SLP stood dismissed and the execution was filed sometime in the year 2007 and execution has not been carried out despite such a long time and the Court had also directed the decision on the execution within a period of four months. The present attempt of the applicant in filing the review application on the ground that on account of documents made available, subsequent events have arisen necessitating the allowing of the review application, the said contention is liable to be rejected in as much as in terms of the mandate of Order 47 Rule 1, it is essential that the discovery of a new and important evidence should be accompanied with assertion that it was not available despite the exercise of due diligence. The reliance is placed upon a Government document, there is no material to suggest that during the entire suit, appeal or second appeal or before the SLP, with due diligence the said document was not available. The present case clearly demonstrates the misuse of process of law at the instance of applicant. Finding no merit whatsoever in the claim of the applicant warranting interference/review of the judgment, the same is hereby dismissed. For misusing the process of law, a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) is imposed upon the applicant, which shall be paid to the respondent within a period of two months, failing which, the same shall be recovered by the District Magistrate, Gonda as arrears of land revenue and shall be paid to the respondents. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench