Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23589 Court No. - 3 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 50 of 2025 Applicant :- Shyamji Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agri. Mark./Agri. Fore. Trade And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Heard Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4. The State has not taken notice. At the very outset, Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the review-petitioner has submitted that since the earlier counsel could not enclose the adoption deed in his writ petition, though there was an adoption deed by the deceased employer adopting the petitioner as his son so that petition has been dismissed in limini for the reason that the petitioner who is the nephew of the deceased employee has got no right to claim the appointment under dying in harness. On being asked from Sri Ashutosh Singh, as to whether by means of the review application, the new ground can be taken which was not taken in the writ petition or as to whether any document can be pressed in the review application, which was not enclosed with the writ petition, Sri Ashutosh Singh has submitted that though neither the adoption deed was enclosed with the writ petition nor such ground was taken, but it was fault on the part of the counsel. Therefore, this review may be allowed. On being further confronted as to whether the petitioner had provided the adoption deed to the earlier counsel, but he has not enclosed that adoption deed in the writ petition, on that attention has been drawn towards the paragraph no. 10 of the affidavit wherein this fact has been indicated. Heard learned counsel for the review-petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar, for opposite parties no. 2 to 4, Law is trite on the point that the review application should be filed by the same Advocate who has filed the writ petition, but this review application has been filed by the subsequent counsel which is not permissible. The aforesaid mandate is purposeful for the reason that only the same counsel can explain to the Court as to what documents were provided to him by the petitioner, but subsequent counsel may not take new plea. Therefore, this review application is dismissed for two reasons, first, the review application has been filed by the subsequent counsel wherein one fact has been alleged which may only be verified by the earlier counsel. Second, the review is not an appeal in disguise, rather there is a very limited ground to allow the review application, i.e., if there is any error on the face of the order or any relevant document was pleaded before the Court and the Court concerned did not consider the same. Since, the aforesaid grounds are missing, therefore, this review application is not maintainable. Hence, the review application is dismissed at the admission stage. However, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority placing his all relevant documents and any appropriate decision may be taken by the competent authority, strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Anurag Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench