Abhishek Kumar vs State Of Up And 4 Others

HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Mr Ajay Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of review applicant, whose writ petition was dismissed by us on order dated 25th July, 2025. He submits, subsequent thereto his client made complaint to the Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare. He refers to communication dated 2nd December, 2025 made by said authority saying, the certificate relied upon by respondent no.5 in the writ petition, which caused dismissal of his client's writ petition, appeared to be doubtful. Such inference was because said respondent did not appear before the authority, on notice issued. He seeks recall of said order dated 25th July, 2025, for restoration of the writ petition to be heard again.

2. Mr Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned advocate, Standing Counsel, appears on behalf of State. Mr Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4 (the oil company).

3. Rule 1 (1) under order XLVII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is reproduced below.

"1. Application for review of judgment. - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."

(emphasis supplied)

4. The subsequent disclosure of aforesaid communication dated 2nd December, 2025 is not new material, which on exercise of due diligence review applicant could not discover to urge on basis thereof, ground of review. It is material brought into existence after the writ petition was disposed of. We need not go any further to enquire on whether on the subsequent complaint to the medical authority, respondent no.5 was obliged to once again subject herself to medical examination. Furthermore, during hearing of the writ petition, review applicant did not pray for adjournment or leave to refer to another authority or hold out challenge against the certificate, forming basis for disposal of it.

5. Stamp Reporter has pointed out 249 days' delay in presenting the review application. Perused cause shown. It is accepted and the delay condoned. Regular number be allotted. The delay application is disposed of.

6. In view of aforesaid, the review is dismissed.

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)

May 7, 2026

RKK/-