Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27681 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 61 of 2025 Applicant :- Lallan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohiuddin Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the review- petitioner. 2. The instant review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in a petition filed by the petitioner bearing MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.1281 of 2025, whereby the Court did not entertain the writ petition of the petitioner and rejected the same imposing a cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within ten days from the date of the order. 3. Learned counsel for the review-petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit today, which is taken on record. 4. The office has reported that the review petition is barred by five days. 5. At the very outset, it may be noticed that since the petition was preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which does not prescribe any period of limitation, thus, there can be no period of limitation for a review filed against an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The only issue that can be considered is on the ground that of laches which apparently in the instant case is not applicable. Thus, this Court finds that there is no delay rather the review petition can be considered on its merits. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the review- petitioner is that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed primarily considering the written instructions of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, BKT, Lucknow dated 10.03.2025 wherein it was indicated that vide order dated 04.09.2023 on an application moved by the petitioner it was informed that an appeal had been filed wherein the records had been summoned. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the review- petitioner is that neither the review-petitioner was aware of the pendency of any appeal nor of the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner in appeal. 8. The attention has been drawn to the certified copy filed by the petitioner along with the supplementary affidavit to indicate that though several dates were fixed but the said order-sheets did not indicate whether the petitioner was aware of the proceedings or was served. 9. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances, there is no averment in the review petition nor in the supplementary affidavit filed today to state that the petitioner was never served with the summons issued by the appellate Court vide order dated 09.08.2023. 10. Apparently, as per the averment made in the writ petition, the petitioner had moved an application on 05.02.2025 for getting his application for execution registered , but there was no averment that there was any order passed by the appellate Court nor indicating that the petitioner attempted to find out whether against the order of which execution is sought any appeal has been filed or not. 11. It is taking the aforesaid facts into consideration that the Court had refused to entertain the writ petition. 12. Learned counsel for the review-petitioner could not dispute that in the review petition as well as in the supplementary affidavit and even in the writ petition, it was never averred as a statement of fact that the petitioner was not aware of the appellate proceedings or he was not served in furtherance of the order dated 09.08.2023. Once the records had been sent to the appellate Court eve then it could be known to the petitioner. 13. In absence of any clear averment, this Court does not find that there is error apparent on the face of the record to pursue this Court to entertain this review petition. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench