Allahabad High Court
ABHISHEK KUMARversusSTATE OF UP AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The review application is dismissed because the communication does not qualify as new material under the CPC review provisions.
Summary
Abhishek Kumar filed a review application after his writ petition was dismissed on 25 July 2025. He relied on a communication dated 2 December 2025 from the Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, which suggested that a medical certificate used by respondent No.5 was doubtful because the respondent did not appear before the authority. The applicant sought recall of the dismissal order and a fresh hearing. The Court examined Rule 1(1) of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits review only on the basis of new and important matter that could not have been discovered with due diligence. The Court held that the December communication was not new material and could not constitute a ground for review, and it also noted the applicant had not challenged the certificate during the original proceedings. Although a 249‑day delay in filing the review was condoned, the review application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the communication dated 2 December 2025 constitutes new and important evidence for a review under Order XLVII Rule 1(1) of the CPC.
- Whether the delay of 249 days bars the review application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLVII Rule 1(1)
Subjects
- review
- writ petition
- new evidence
- CPC
- delay
- medical certificate
- order dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 137 of 2026
Abhishek Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Mishra, Sachin Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C., Rakesh Kumar Gupta
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
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,
CMRAD No. 137 of 2026
2
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/-
Digitally signed by :-
RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…