Allahabad High Court
CMRA/151/2025 of SHAGUN KUMAR ROOPAK Vs CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE LKO. AND 3 OTHERS on 17 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 151 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is an application seeking review of order dated 04.11.2025. 3. The contention of the applicant's counsel is that para nos.4 and 5 of the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 151 of 2025
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard.
2. This is an application seeking review of order dated 04.11.2025.
3. The contention of the applicant's counsel is that para nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit dated 30.08.2025 have been referred, which in fact is not on record and is non-existent. Secondly, it was incorrectly informed to the Court that name of Anurag Srivastava had been mentioned for the first time in the appellate proceedings whereas pleadings regarding him were made before the Writ Court also. It has further been argued that contrary stand was taken before this Court, therefore, the judgment dated 04.11.2025 should be reviewed. No other ground has been argued before us.
4. As regards the affidavit dated 30.08.2025, it is a typographical error. The affidavit is dated 31.10.2025. So far as the contrary stand is concerned, we have given reasons for not interfering in the judgment of the writ court in an intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules and do not find any reasons to review any of the said reasons. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Anand Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Shagun Kumar Roopak .....Applicant(s) Chief General Manager, State Bank Of India Local Head Office Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
5. So far as the contention that the pleadings regarding Anurag Srivastava were made before the writ court also, those are also inconsequential and even if it was incorrectly argued by the counsel for respondent that for the first time in appeal this stand is being taken, it would not affect the result of the appeal for the reasons already given in the judgment dated 04.11.2025. In fact we have perused the records of the writ petition and the orders passed on 15.10.2025 and earlier, as also the final order passed therein. We distinctly remember and is also evident from the record that we had summoned the records which were not only available on 15.10.2025 but also on the date of disposal of the appeal on 04.11.2025 though we had not specifically mentioned this fact in our order dated 04.11.2025, but on a reading of it itself, it is evident that the relevant facts were seen.
6. It is settled proposition of law that rehearing in the garb of review application is not permissible. We do not find any grounds for reviewing our judgment dated 04.11.2025. The application is, accordingly, rejected. December 17, 2025 Anand/- CMRA No. 151 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench