By the Court.—Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel assisted by Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for NOIDA the applicant in Review petition (Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition).

2. This application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Chapter 5 Rule 12 of the High Court Rules, on behalf of respondent No. 3 praying that the review application be allowed and judgment dated 21.10.2011 be set aside /modified.

3. Full Bench of this Court after hearing Bunch of writ petitions leading writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 Gajraj and others v. State of U.P., decided all the writ petitions by judgment and order dated 21.10.2011. The bunch of writ petitions were decided after hearing the respondent No. 3 which has filed this review application. The respondent No. 3 in the leading writ petitions and other writ petitions had also filed their counter-affidavits supplementary counter-affidavits and had produced the original records. Considering the submissions of the parties and perusing the pleadings including the records the judgment was delivered.

4. Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant at very out set referred to the direction No. 5 of the judgment which was to the following effect :

“5. The Greater NOIDA and its allottees are directed not to carry on development and not to implement the Master Plan 2021 till the observations and directions of the National Capital Regional Planning Board are incorporated in Master Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the National Capital Regional Planning Board. We make it clear that this direction shall not be applicable in those cases where the development is being carried on in accordance with the earlier Master Plan of the Greater NOIDA duly approved by the National Capital Regional Planning Board.”

5. Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel submits that immediately after judgment of this Court dated 21.10.2011 the respondent No. 3 sent a letter to the State Government on 1.11.2011 for approval of revised master plan 2021 and sending it to the National Capital Regional Planning Board. Learned counsel for the applicant has produced several correspondence before the Court beginning from 1.11.2011. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that National Capital Regional Planning Board has also responded to the correspondence and raised certain objections. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that several objections raised by the National Capital Regional Planning Board are frivolous objections effect of which is that the respondent No. 3 is unable to carry on the development. It is submitted that this Court did not intend by its judgment dated 21.10.2011 to stop the development except that developments were required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985. The grievance of the respondent No. 3 is that due to in-action of the National Capital Regional Planning Board, the respondent No. 3 is suffering, it is prohibited to carry on its development which is causing huge loss to it. Insofar as the above submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, it is clear that what is being challenged is action or in-action of the National Capital Regional Planning Board, subsequent to our judgment dated 21.10.2011. The correspondence which have been placed before us, beginning from the letter dated 1.11.2011 is subsequent to our judgment. The fact which is sought to be manifested by Sri Ravindara Kumar is that after the judgment dated 21.10.2011, applicant initiated process so that the clearance could be obtained from National Capital Regional Planning Board to carry on the development. We observe that action or in-action complained of by the respondent No. 3 gives a subsequent cause of action to the applicant-respondent No. 3 and the said ground cannot be basis for review of the judgment dated 21.102011. The respondent No. 3 is free to agitate the aforesaid issues by means of a fresh wr