Allahabad High Court
Kishori Lal And 4 Others vs Smt. Halki And 6 Others on 7 August, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157572
Reserved On:- 02.08.2023
Delivered On:-07.08.2023
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 26 of 2023
Applicant :- Kishori Lal And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- Smt. Halki And 6 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Parvat Singh,Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi,Kishan Gautam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Birendra Prasad Maurya,Ram Kishore Pandey,Suresh Kumar Maurya
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
1. Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4/1/1 and4/2/ review applicant; Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties.
2. This review application has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4/1/1 to 4/2 praying for review and recall of the judgment and order dated 22.11.2022/20.12.2022 passed by this Court in Writ- No.5595/1982 (Halki Vs. D.D.C. and Others)
3. At the very outset the counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties, Sri R.K. Pandey has opposed the review application on the ground of its maintainability. He has submitted that the review application was argued by Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, Sri Kishan Gautam and Sri P.S. Kushwaha, Advocate, never argued the writ petition on behalf of any of the respondent and they have filed fresh vakalatnama claiming with the review applicant. He has further submitted that the present review application has been filed on wholly new grounds and facts by new counsels, who neither appeared earlier nor argued the writ petition. He has submitted that the Apex Court in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs V. Narayana Reddy 2022 SCC Online SC 1034 has held that no review application lies at the instance of new counsel. He has also relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Pathak Wife of Late. Tarkeshwar Nath Pathak Vs. Vinod Shankar Tiwari, etc., 2005 LawSuit(Allahabad) 314 and submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has held that earlier counsel who did not argued the writ petition and special appeal cannot argued the review application. The issues which were not raised earlier cannot be agitated in review application.
4. Learned counsel for the review applicant has submitted that he was one of the counsel for the respondent no. 4 earlier also and assisted by Sri Kameshar Singh, who argued the writ petition on behalf of respondent no. 4/1/1 He has submitted that he was always counsel for respondent no. 4 in this writ petition and even though, he did not argued the writ petition on behalf of respondent no. 4, he has right to file the review application being earlier counsel for the opposite party no. 4 and her legal heirs.
5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, had filed a vakalatnama on 13th January, 2021 on behalf of Sri Kishori Lal. However, in the vakaltnama, he was not counsel for respondent no. 4/2, namely, Durjan Singh, son of late Daya Ram. There was no vakalatnama filed by the Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi on behalf of respondent no. 4/2, Durjan. In the review application fresh vakalatnama has been executed by respondent nos. 4/1/1 Kishori Lal, 4/1/3 Narayan Das, 4/1/4 Prem Chand, 4/2 Durjan and 4/1/2 Kashiram, in favour of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, and the two new counsels, who have filed vakalatnama on behalf of the aforesaid review applicants. Therefore, it is clear that the Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi was earlier counsel of only respondent no. 4/1/1, Kishori Lal, and regarding other legal heirs of deceased respondent no. 4/1, he was never counsel in the writ petition.
6. One Ram Singh, has also signed the vakalatnama, when he is nowhere party in the writ petition. This Ram Singh had also signed the vakalatnama dated 13.01.2021 alongwith respondent no. 4/1/1, Sri Kishori Lal. The two vakalatnamas' of Kishori Lal, the one dated 13.01.2021 and the other dated 13.01.2023, bear two different signatures. It is clear that Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, is only, earlier counsel for applicant no. 4/1/1 and none of the other contesting legal heirs of respondent no. 4/1 authorized him to contest writ petition on their behalf. Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, being new counsel engaged by the other legal heirs of respondent no. 4/1 and 4/2, except respondent nos. 4/1/3 cannot argue the review application on their behalf. It is also doubtful whether the respondent no. 4/1/1 Kishori Lal, had engaged Sri Kamlesh Tripathi, earlier or not since in the fresh vakalatnama attached to the review petition, his signatures is different. If the review application is considered on behalf respondent no. 4/1/1 only and some order is passed, it may be against the interest of the other legal heirs of respondent nos. 4/1 and 4/2
7. Hence, this review application is not maintainable and is hereby, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 07.08.2023
Abhishek
