HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 104 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Shreyas Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority. 2. The instant review application is preferred for reviewing the order dated 19.01.2026 on the premise that there is an apparent error on the face of record in paragraph no.6 of the order dated 19.01.2026. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant review application on the premise that the review application has been pressed only on an affidavit given by the deponent, who is the petitioner, on the ground that the deponent was not satisfied with the earlier counsel and consequently, another counsel has been engaged to file the review application. 4. We have perused the material available on record and also seen paragraph-9 of the affidavit filed in support of review application which is quoted herein under:- "9. That, though the above-mentioned Writ Petition had been filed by the petitioner through Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma as its counsel, the Review Applicant/Petitioner, being not satisfied with its earlier counsel, decided to prefer the instant Review Petition through Mr. Shreyas Srivastava, Advocate. For this, appropriate endorsement of no- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shreesh Srivastava, Shreyas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aditya Bhushan Singhal M/S Jai Industries .....Applicant(s) Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority And Another .....Opposite Party(s) objection has been obtained from the erstwhile counsels." 5. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would indicate that as the deponent was not satisfied with the earlier counsel, therefore, he sought a change of the counsel to file the review application and for the said purpose, he has obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the earlier counsel. It is normal practice of this Court that the review application is always filed and argued by the counsel, who had appeared when the order was passed. 6. In the present case, even though 'No Objection Certificate' has been obtained from the earlier counsel, however, he has not been made a co- counsel in the review application. It would be a prudent measure to make the earlier counsel a co-counsel in the application to satisfy the practice of this Court. Once the earlier counsel has not been made the co-counsel, we find that the said review application cannot be entertained and the objection, so raised by the respondent's counsel, is justified. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the instant review application and the same accordingly stands rejected. April 20, 2026 Sumit S CMRAD No. 104 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad