Allahabad High Court
M/S JAI INDUSTRIESversusYAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The review application was rejected because the earlier counsel was not made a co‑counsel, violating the Court’s practice.
Summary
M/S Jai Industries filed a review application challenging an order dated 19.01.2026, alleging an apparent error in paragraph 6 of that order. The applicant changed counsel for the review, obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the earlier counsel but did not make the earlier counsel a co‑counsel. The respondent objected, arguing that the High Court’s practice requires the original counsel to be a co‑counsel in a review petition. The Court examined the affidavit and noted that while the No Objection Certificate was obtained, the earlier counsel was not made a co‑counsel, which contravenes established practice. Consequently, the Court held that the review application could not be entertained. The application was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a review application is maintainable when the applicant changes counsel without making the earlier counsel a co‑counsel despite obtaining a No Objection Certificate.
Subjects
- review petition
- maintainability
- change of counsel
- no objection certificate
- High Court practice
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 104 of 2026
M/S Jai Industries
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development
Authority And Another .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shreesh Srivastava, Shreyas Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aditya Bhushan Singhal
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-
CMRAD No. 104 of 2026
2
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.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
April 20, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…