HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 158 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. C.M. Review Application No. 1 of 2025 - Application for condonation of delay in filing Review Application under Rule XII of Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 1. In view of the avernment made in the affidavit in support of the review application, this Court is of the view that there is no legal impediment in allowing the application. 2. Consequently, the application is allowed. 3. Delay is condoned. Order on Review application 1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review applicant as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents. 2. By means of the present review application, the applicants have sought a review of the order dated 07.07.2025, passed in Writ - B No.622 of 2025. 3. The aforesaid writ petition was preferred by one Durga Prasad and Shiv Prasad, both sons of Ram Shankar, and has sought a direction from this Court to direct the State respondents to demarcate the chak and for delivery of possession of said chak of chak No.2239 in light of the order Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, Madan Gopal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Shiv Kumar And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) Commissioner Of Consolidation, Lko. And Others .....Opposite Party(s) dated 11.01.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti in exercise of power under Section 48 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is on the aforesaid petition that this Court without entering into the merits of the controversy, finding that the petitioners therein had sought to execute the orders dated 11.01.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Shrawasti / Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti, giving liberty to the petitioners to move an application under Section 28 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which provides for delivery of possession. This Court did not enter into the merits of the controversy, and the petition was disposed of merely directing the petitioners therein to avail a statutory remedy available to him. 4. The present review application has been filed without impleading the writ petitioners of writ petition bearing Writ - B No.622 of 2025. When the said defect was pointed out to the counsel for the applicants by the registry of the Court, an endorsement has been made that there is no requirement of making writ petitioners as a party in the present review application. 5. The only ground urged before this court is that in the previous writ petition, the petitioners therein had deliberately concealed the fact that the petitioners in the present writ petition has challenged the validity of the order dated 11.01.2024, in the writ petition filed before this Court being Writ - B No.555 of 2024 and by concealing the said facts the order dated 07.07.2025 was passed and no other ground was urged while seeking review of the order dated 07.07.2025. 6. Considering the arguments of the petitioners, firstly, it is noticed that this Court had not entered into the merits of the controversy nor decided any lis between the parties but only noticing that an order has been passed in favour of the previous writ petitioners on 11.01.2024 had given a liberty to approach the competent authority in case he seeks to execute the order passed in his favour. Further, I do not find any merit in submissions of the petitioners that the private respondents were aware of the pendency of writ petition no.622 of 2025 filed by the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners had approached this Court only in the month of May, 2025, CMRAD No. 158 of 2025 2 and the order impugned in the present review petition was passed on 07.07.2025 and it could not be demonstrated that by that time any notices have been issued int the said writ petition to the writ petition of the petitioners of writ petition no. 622 of 2025 or that learned counsel was served or they were in knowledge of the writ petition preferred by the petitioners. 7. In light of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. September 25, 2025 KR CMRAD No. 158 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench