HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 19 of 2021 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard Sri Bajrangi Lal Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prahlad Maurya learned counsel for the respondent in review application and Sri Vikas Verma learned counsel for the respondent no.7. Submission of learned counsel for the review petitioner is that on incorrect premise the petition was dismissed as having become infructuous merely on the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, however, the facts would indicate that the petition requires to be heard on merit. It is also pointed out that two connected petitions were filed and therefore, there is no issue regarding the writ having become infructuous as the rights of the parties have to be adjudicated. Sri Prahlad Maurya learned counsel for the review-opposite parties submits that he has been engaged only for the purpose of review and in case if the review is allowed, he does not have the instructions to argue on behalf of the respondent. Sri Vikas Verma learned counsel for the respondent no.7 has reiterated that the petition has been dismissed as having returned infructuous which does not require any interference, however, the respondent could not demonstrate as to how the petition has become infructuous, in as much as substantial issues regarding the rights of the parties are involved. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Banwari Lal Maurya, Bajrangi Lal Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vikas Verma, Deep Narayan Tripathi, Prahlad Maurya Lal Ji .....Applicant(s) D.D.C. Faizabad And Others .....Opposite Party(s) Having considered the aforesaid, this Court finds that the orders passed in Writ Petition no.54 Consolidation of 2005 dated 08.01.2021 deserves to be reviewed, accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The writ petition is restored to be heard on merits. The Court has proceeded to hear Sri Bajrangi Lal Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner. It will be open for Sri Maurya to participate in the hearing or in case, if he feels handicapped as he alleges that his engagement was only for the purpose of review that is the matter between his client and him, and this Court does not deem appropriate to issue fresh notices once the counsel is already present before this Court. As prayed, put up on 06.11.2025 along with connected matters for further hearing. Interim order, granted earlier, shall continue till the next date of listing. November 4, 2025 Harshita CMRA No. 19 of 2021 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench