Allahabad High Court
CMRA/144/2025 of M/S SVGS ENTERPRISES THRU AUTHORISED SIGNATORY/ P.O.A. HOLDER RITESH KUMAR SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN.SECY. REVENUE LUCKNOW AND ORS. on 25 November 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 144 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner seeking review upon judgment dated 30.10.2025 passed in Writ-C No.10495
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 144 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. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner seeking review upon judgment dated 30.10.2025 passed in Writ-C No.10495 of 2025 is that the applicant-petitioner is not a company as has been incorrectly stated in para-4 of the order, it is a proprietorship firm and that the proprietor is an illiterate lady.
2. As regards, the reference to the applicant-petitioner as a company in para- 4, that may be an error but it does not alter the result of the writ, even if, the applicant-petitioner is a proprietorship firm, somebody else i.e. other than her husband could have been authorized to file the writ petition, if it was permissible or the proprietor could have herself put her thumb impression on the petition.
3. We correct our order only to the extent that the reference to the applicant- petitioner as a company should be read and understood as a reference to a proprietorship firm. Apart from it, there is no other ground for reviewing our judgment dated 30.10.2025 by which the petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Anita Singh, Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Sanjay Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Verma M/S Svgs Enterprises Thru Authorised Signatory/ P.O.A. Holder Ritesh Kumar Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow And Ors. .....Opposite Party(s)
4. We have also gone through the grounds raised in the review application. None of the grounds persuade to review our judgment.
5. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. November 25, 2025/V. Sinha CMRA No. 144 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench