Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25057 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 64 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Genda Opposite Party :- Rama Kant And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Suyesh Pradhan Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard Sri Suyesh Pradhan learned counsel for the review petitioner. The instant review application has been preferred seeking review of judgment and order dated 16.01.2025 passed by this Court in Writ C no.3834 of 2022. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing review application has also been filed as the registry has reported that the review application is barred by 66 days. At the outset, it may be noticed that since the order in review relates to a judgment passed by this Court in Writ C no.3834 of 2022, and noticing the fact that there is no limitation for filing a writ petition rather, it is the concept of laches which has to be explained, hence, in such circumstances, it cannot be imputed that where in the proceedings the issue of limitation is not applicable then in review there can be some period of limitation, since, there is no period prescribed either under the rules of the Court for filing a review against a judgment passed in a writ proceedings, accordingly, this Court finds that there is no requirement of filing an application for condonation of delay though it would be appropriate to explain the laches and in this context, the affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken note of and the reasons as indicated therein appears to be sufficient to condone the laches. [See: Mohd. Jahan Begum and Anr v. Board of Revenue and Ors; 2016 SCC OnLine All 3678]. The Court has thereafter proceeded to hear learned counsel for the review petitioner on merits. It is urged by Sri Suyesh Pradhan that there was a dispute regarding the heirs of Smt. Surata. There was a report of the Revenue Inspector, which was not on record when the writ proceedings were contested, however, once the same has been received, it has been placed on record with this review petition. It is urged that the document should be taken note of as it can have a different impact on the outcome of the case, hence the review. The aforesaid submission if seen, it would indicate that the same is completely misconceived for more than one reasons. First, the proceedings of Writ C no.3834 of 2024 arose out of the mutation proceedings which needless to say are of summary nature and the Courts are generally reluctant to interfere in mutation proceedings as it does not decide the matter or rights finally. Secondly, the alleged report of the Revenue Inspector, a photo copy of which has been brought on record with the affidavit is dated 04.09.2014 i.e. prior to the date of institution of the writ petition itself which came to be filed in 2022. The Court had already considered the material on record of the writ petition and had passed. The said document which at any point of time was never brought to the notice of the Courts, despite it existed since 2014. Thirdly, the report of the Revenue Inspector is not a conclusive report in so far as the heir ship is concerned which needless to say could not be made binding even if placed on record as the issue upon the writ petition was allowed was on a different premise altogether as noticed by the writ Court. The fact that there was a compromise, upon which, the petitioner had raised a claim which came to be recalled and this fact is not denied. Liberty was granted for getting the heir ship decided in the proceedings which is also a fact which is not disputed. In the aforesaid circumstances merely to bring an unsubstantiated report on record and to get a re-hearing of the petition on merits is nothing but an abuse of process and is not within the parameters as laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court in so far as a review is concerned. [Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors; (2021) 13 SCC 1]. Lastly, it is also relevant to mention that the review petition has been filed by Sri Suyesh Pradhan learned counsel who had not argued the writ petition on behalf of the review petitioner and he has not sought 'no objection' from the erstwhile counsel. Hence, for this reason as well this Court is not inclined to consider the review petition. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that there is no ground for review nor there is any error apparent on the face of record. The petition is misconceived and hence, dismissed with the cost of Rs.1500/- which is to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench