HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 8 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for the review- petitioners and learned AGA. 2. An objection has been raised by learned AGA that the review is not maintainable for the reason that firstly the review is not maintainable under the Criminal law and, secondly, the review has not been filed by the counsel who had argued the petition, in which the impugned judgment and order was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the review-petitioners submits that the review- petitioners have filed supplementary affidavit disclosing in paragraph 4 as to why this review could not be filed through the counsel who had argued the matter and why 'No Objection' could also not be obtained. Therefore this review-petition has rightly been filed by learned counsel for the review-petitioners because the submission is that merely because the petitioners were not in a position to get the review petition filed by the counsel who had argued the matter and since he has also not given 'No Objection' for the reasons stated in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit, the petitioners cannot be left remedy less, if the remedy is available, which could not be disputed by learned AGA. Therefore he submits that this petition may not be dismissed only on account of non filing of review by the counsel, who had argued the writ petition. He Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ritika Singh, Chandan Srivastava, Lavkush Yadav, Yogesh Somvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bhagwan Devi And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) further submits that it is not a review of the criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code and the impugned order was passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore the contention of learned AGA that the review application is not maintainable under the criminal law is not sustainable. He further submits that the only ground for review is that in view of paragraph 34 of the impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2025 passed in Matters Under Article 227 No.8432/2021 (Bhagwan Devi and Anr. versus State of U.P. and Anr.), in which the observation has been made in regard to the execution of Will by Late Santram in favour of Bhagwan Devi, it may effect the civil suit in regard to challenge of same. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the review-petitioners seems to be misconceived, firstly, because the remedy of review is not available under the Criminal Procedure Code and, secondly, the only observation made is on the plea taken in the petition at the time of arguments. The authenticity of Will has not been adjudicated by this Court. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the review-petitioners is misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed. November 13, 2025 Akanksha Sri/- CRRA No. 8 of 2025 2 (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench