Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38645 Court No. - 11 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 92 of 2024 Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Savitra Vardhan Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1.Heard Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the private opposite party No.5. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Singh, has drawn attention of this Court towards the order under review dated 29.07.2024 referring para-6 thereof by submitting that the fact was apprised to the Court to the effect that the newly born child of opposite party No.5 is admitted in Trauma Centre, Lucknow on account of serious burn injuries is not correct inasmuch as such incident took place about three years ago. However, he has stated that the child of opposite party No.5 had suffered burn injuries. Therefore, Sri Deepak Singh has stated that had the correction information been placed before this Court, the order passed in the writ petition would have not been passed. Therefore, the order dated 29.07.2024 may be reviewed. 3. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the private opposite party No.5 has submitted that he had argued the case on 29.07.2024 on the basis of medical papers, so received by him, and if some information in the medical papers were not properly mentioned, neither his client nor he himself was responsible. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh has shown the coloured photographs of the child of the opposite party No.5 showing his burn injuries, perusal thereof reveals that such child received serious burn injuries and at that point of time his condition must have been critical. 4. Sri Deepak Singh has submitted that after filing this review application the private opposite party No.5 started filing misconceived complaints against the applicant, resultant thereof, one inquiry has been constituted and he has been suffering a lot. 5. Be that as it may, since this Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 was pleased to dispose of the writ petition finally directing the Competent Authority to consider the grievance of the parties, strictly in accordance with law and pass appropriate order. Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority has passed the order. The parties are discharging their duties at their respective place. If the applicant/petitioner or the private opposite party No.5 are having their other grievance, they may prefer a fresh representation to the Competent Authority for redressal of their grievance, but I do not find any error apparent on the face of it to review or recall the order dated 29.07.2024. 6. It is settled proposition of law by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the scope of the review is very limited and unless & until an apparent error is pointed out on the judgment in question or any apparent illegality has been made, the order in question may not be reviewed as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Thungabhadra Industries Limited vs. Governor of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372, M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi reported in (1980) 2 SCC 167 and in the case of Lily Thomas and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 that review cannot be an appeal in disguise to re-hear the matter. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Subhash vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2002 SC 2537 as well as Rajendra Kumar vs. Rambhai reported in AIR 2003 SC 2095 and Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banki (Smt.) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78. 7. In the instant case, since there is no apparent error or illegality in the order dated 29.07.2024, therefore, this review application is devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 8. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to review my judgment and order dated 29.07.2024 as no illegality or infirmity has been pointed out and scope of review is very limited, as the review application may not be treated as an extended appeal in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases. 9. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. 10.No order as to cost. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Suresh/ Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench