HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 155 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Shiv Poojan Maurya, learned counsel for the review-applicant. 2. Instant review application has been filed praying for review of the judgment and order dated 29.05.2025 passed in First Appeal From Order No. 233 of 2025 Inre; Anuj Jain Vs. Smt. Sangita Jain and 4 ors. 3. By the said order, the first appeal from order filed by the applicant had been dismissed. 4. Instant review application has been filed urging following grounds namely (a) that this Court had formulated various grounds on which the appeal has been filed. So far as ground (b) was concerned which was that the will dated 10.03.2021 as executed in favour of the wife and two sons of Sri Mukesh Jain cannot be said to have been executed by Sri Jain while being in correct mental health which would be indicative from the fact that the properties belonging to Sri Jain had not been spelt out viz-a-viz the earlier will dated 18/19.07.2019 and that he had Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anu Pratap Singh, Ashok Kumar Shukla, Shiv Poojan Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anuj Jain .....Applicant(s) Smt. Sangita Jain And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) only affixed his thumb impression on the said will and this Court while considering the said ground in paragraph 27 of the judgment had indicated that no document has been filed in the instant appeal to indicate that Sri Mukesh Jain was not in complete sense at the time of execution of the will deed dated 10.03.2021. In this regard, learned counsel for the review- applicant has contended that there was a medical certificate that had been filed as annexure 4 to the said appeal and now annexure 2 to the instant review application which indicates that Sri Jain was not in a complete mental health. 5. Various other medical records have also been annexed with the instant review application. 6. The aforesaid ground is found to be fallacious, misconceived and hence rejected. 7. The said medical certificate over which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the review applicant indicates that Sri Jain has been diagnosed as acute eceptialopathy metabolic & septic, Urosepsis LCOLi SCA12 Type 2 diabetes with Essential Hypertension Bipolar Affective Disorder and is continuing follow up treatment under neuroscience OPD but the said certificate does not indicate about the mental incapacity of Sri Jain to execute the will. 8. In this regard, it would also be apt to refer to the will as executed by Sri Jain. 9. This Court has specifically recorded that a perusal of the will dated 13.03.2021 would indicate that executant Sri Mukesh Jain has clearly specified the reason in the said will as to why he is affixing his thumb impression and as to why he is unable to sign which both things have been indicated on the basis of his ill health. Once the certificate over which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the review-applicant does not clearly indicate regarding the mental unfitness of Sri Jain consequently, this Court is not required to derive something CMRAD No. 155 of 2025 2 from the medical certificate which is not specifically indicated therein. Accordingly, the said ground is rejected. 10. The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the review-applicant is that in the will as executed by Sri Jain dated 13.03.2021, he had indicated that in case he has executed any other will, the same is also being cancelled him. 11. Contention is that had Sri Jain been in his complete mental health, he would have clearly indicated the will which he was cancelling and there cannot be any occasion for him to indicate about cancellation of his earlier will without being specific in this regard. 12. The aforesaid ground is also found to be patently fallacious and misconceived considering that Sri Jain as a precaution had clearly indicated in the said will that in case there is any other will, the same would also be treated to be cancelled. Nothing further can be read in the will of Sri Jain. 13. Learned counsel for the review-applicant contends that Sri Jain has indicated in the said will that in case he has got "any other property", the same would also stand bequeathed to the persons as indicated in the said will which also indicates about his mental health. Merely because a person may have indicated about all his properties without specifying the same it cannot be said that he was not in a complete mental sense at the time of execution of the said will. 14. Learned counsel for the review-applicant has also placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Inderchand Jain (Deceased by L.RS) Vs. Motilal (Deceased by L.RS.)- 2009 AIR SCW 5364, M/s Thungabhadra Industries Ltd Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxex, Anantapur & S.Bagirath Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission- 2007 AIR SCW 7848 regarding the scope of the review application. CMRAD No. 155 of 2025 3 15. Although the law laid down by the Apex Court is explicit and clear that a review cannot be used for the purpose of rehearing and re-arguing the matter but the instant instant case the Court has clearly gone into the grounds as have been raised by the applicant while filing the review application and the said grounds are also found to be patently misconceived. 16. Accordingly, the instant review application is rejected September 22, 2025 Pachhere/- CMRAD No. 155 of 2025 4 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench