Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 70192 (ALL)

NOBIL KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

CMRA/245/2025 · 2025-09-15

Amitabh Kumar Rai, Saral Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 245 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the review-applicant, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent, Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai and Narendra Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present review application has been filed by the review-applicant for review of the judgement of this Court dated 12.05.2025 passed in Writ-C No.6488 of 2025. 3. Writ-C No.6488 of 2025 was filed by Sri Abhinav Gaur and Sri Vibhu Rai, Advocates and after hearing them, learned counsel for the Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the State, the writ petition was dismissed by this Court by judgement dated 12.5.2025. 4. Now a review application has been filed by one Sri Kundan Rai, Advocate. 5. When this Court put a query to Sri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the review-applicant that since he was not the original counsel in the writ petition, how this review application can be filed by him, he submitted that since there is no bar in the Code of Civil Procedure in filing the review application by another counsel and further, he has obtained No Objection from the earlier counsel, therefore, present review application is maintainable. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another Vs. N. Raju Reddiear and Another AIR 1997 SC 1005 has held Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kundan Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Nobil Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) that review application can be filed only by original counsel, who has argued the writ petition. 7. In view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu (supra), the review application on behalf of review-applicant is not maintainable. 8. Thus, for the reasons given above, the review application being misconceived is dismissed. September 16, 2025 Gaurav CMRA No. 245 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad