- 1 - Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC-LKO:15777-DB Reserved Chief Justice's Court Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 158 of 2024 Applicant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Confidential And Vigilance Lko. And Another Opposite Party :- Deepak Yadav Counsel for Applicant :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. (Per:- Jaspreet Singh, J.) Order on Ref:- C.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 (Delay Condonation Application) 1. The instant application has been moved seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant review-petition. 2. Having considered the said application and the grounds taken therein are sufficient for condoning the delay of 51 days, coupled with the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent does not seriously contest the application for condonation of delay, accordingly, the delay of 51 days in filing the review-petition is condoned, consequently, the instant application shall stand allowed. On Merit 3. Heard learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the review-petitioner who seeks review of a judgment passed by this Court dated 22.05.2024 in Special Appeal No. 390 of 2022 whereby the intra-court appeal preferred by the respondent (the writ- petitioner) was partly allowed. 4. The thrust of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while pressing the review application is that this Court while hearing the intra-court appeal vide its order dated 19.04.2024 had permitted time to the State to file an affidavit and as per the Review - 2 - Petitioner, the said affidavit was filed, however, this Court in its judgment dated 22.05.2024 in paragraph 30 has recorded that the Court had called upon the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel but no such affidavit was filed. However, the said affidavit was filed on 23.04.2024 in the registry of the Court. 5. It was further stated that once the affidavit had been filed in the registry after serving a copy of the said supplementary affidavit on the learned counsel for the appellant in the intra-court appeal (the respondent herein) and it was accompanied with an application bearing No. 7 of 2024 which was accepted by the Registry of the Court on 26.04.2024, then the same should have been placed on record. However, it is urged that the Court erred in by recording that no such affidavit was filed by the review-petitioner and this is an error apparent on the face of record. Thus, the judgment dated 22.05.2024 be reviewed, taking note of the affidavit and its contents. 6. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the review- petitioner. In light of the averments made in the review-petition, this Court vide order dated 17.02.2025 had called for an office report and the matter was directed to be listed on 18.02.2025. 7. Office report was submitted and it indicates that the supplementary affidavit was filed by the State but since the judgment was reserved on 19.04.2024, hence, the said affidavit came to be tagged with the paper-book only after the judgment was delivered. Though, the affidavit is now on record of the Special Appeal No. 390 of 2022 and this is noted to put the record straight. 8. Be that as it may, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel may be right in submitting that the said affidavit was filed and the same should have been placed or brought to the notice of the Court by the Registry of this Court despite the fact that the - 3 - matter was reserved for judgment. However, to rule out any prejudices this Court has considered the said affidavit but in the factual matrix of this case and the matter of controversy involved, even after having considered the contents of the affidavit, which has been pressed into service by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel in this review petition this Court finds that the merits of the submissions have already been considered and appropriately dealt with in the judgment dated 22.05.2024. The contents of the affidavit filed on 26.04.2024 does not in any manner impact the the outcome or conclusion of the judgment dated 22.05.2024. Thus, to that extent, the review petitioner has not been prejudiced as far as merits is concerned. 9. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is unable to persuade itself to come to a different conclusion even with the affidavit being considered, than what was recorded in the judgment dated 22.05.2024, Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No other point has been pressed. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 19th March, 2025. Asheesh/- (Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.) Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench