Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29961 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 69 of 2025 Applicant :- Surya Narayan Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari,Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhans Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the review-petitioner who has challenged the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 3970 of 2022. The submission of learned counsel for the review-petitioner is that there are certain documents which have been placed with the review petition and in case if such documents are considered, the fate of the case could be otherwise. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, the review petitioner in the instant review-petition has primarily referred to a sale deed which has been brought on record along with this review- petition as Annexure No. 1 running page 50 to 59 of the paper- book. Apparently, the said deed does not relate to the petitioner. it is relevant to notice that the instant petition was filed assailing the order of the respondent no. 3 which was also made subject to an appeal put to appeal before the respondent no. 2 relating to deficiency in stamp duty. The proceedings emanated under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended and applicable to the State of U.P. The documents to be seen on which the deficiency is assessed is the instrument in question and other different documents may or may not have much impact on the case of the review-petitioner. In the instant case, the findings have been recorded by the Court on the basis of the material on record and disclosed in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the order impugned dated 15.04.2025. The learned counsel for the review-petitioner could not point out any error apparent on the record in so far as the findings of the court is concerned and also could not indicate that even if at all, the said deed is taken into consideration, how it would materially affect the case of the petitioner especially when the inspection report which related to the property, the subject matter of the document of the petitioner had clearly stated certain facts which were never disputed by the petitioner, hence, in the garb of review, a fresh re-hearing on merits cannot be permitted. For the aforesaid reasons, the present review-application is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Asheesh/- Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench