HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 150 of 2026 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Sri Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gajendra Pratap, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Singh, and Sri Saurabh Raj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This review petition has been filed by the applicant with a view to draw the attention of this Court towards certain infirmities in the order dated 14.7.2026 passed in First Appeal From Order No. 999 of 2024. Before dealing with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant, it would be appropriate to mention, in brief, the facts which gave rise to F.A.F.O. No. 999 of 2024. 3. The applicant/plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction, partition, as well as declaration before the Trial Court. In the said suit, five properties, namely, A, B, C, D and Z, were stated to be the suit properties. An application for temporary injunction in respect of the suit properties was filed before the Trial Court, which came to be dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal, First Appeal From Order No. 999 of 2024 was filed before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff has urged before this Court that, in its order dated 14.7.2026, this Court has wrongly transcribed the prayer made by the plaintiff in his application for temporary injunction filed before the Trial Court. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the injunction application filed by him before the Trial Court. 5. From a perusal of the injunction application filed by the applicant and the order impugned therein, it is apparent that paragraph 13 contains a slight error. The prayer for temporary injunction was reproduced in the judgment of this Court and, in the last line, the word 'properties' after the word 'suit' has been omitted, and only the word 'suit' has been mentioned. The said typographical error is liable to be corrected, and the words 'suit properties' is to be mentioned instead in the aforementioned paragraph of the impugned order. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ritvik Upadhya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Raj Srivastava Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya .....Applicant(s) Maharaj Kumari Harpriya And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court has observed that the injunction application of the plaintiff was vague and advanced his arguments at great length in this regard. 7. This Court does not propose to go into those arguments, as they virtually amount to an attempt to re-open the merits of the said case and the findings recorded by this Court. This Court has itself perused its order and the facts which were placed before it. The said facts were discussed by learned counsel for both the parties, and they admitted that the facts were the same as those stated by this Court in its order dated 14.07.2026. 8. This Court is of the firm view that the word 'vague' was used in respect of the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff after considering the subject matter of the suit as well as the application for temporary injunction. This Court reiterates that it does not find the said finding to be either perverse or suffering from any error apparent on the face of the record. Nor has this Court misread the particulars or the prayer made in the said application. 9. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the present review application. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that, if there is any irregularity or illegality in the order, the same may be assailed before the superior Court, and that a review petition for challenging the merits of the case is not maintainable. 11. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed, subject to the extent that the typographical error occurring in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment shall stand rectified in terms of the observations made hereinabove. September 9, 2026 Mukesh CMRA No. 150 of 2026 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad