A review application cannot be entertained after the dismissal of a Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court, as it constitutes an abuse of judicial process.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Sinha, J.

Ref: Civil Misc. Review Application No.6 of 2021.

1. The review application is for hearing and disposal. Review-applicant is the State. It seeks review of judgment dated 22nd January, 2015 of a Division Bench, none of the learned judges in which are at present available. Hence, we as the regular Bench are dealing with the review.

2. The application was earlier heard on 12th August, 2025 by a Bench, to which one of us was party (Arindam Sinha, J.). Preliminary objection was raised on behalf of writ petitioners, opposing the review, contending State had filed Special Leave to Appeal petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, dismissed on order dated 4th December, 2019. It then filed for review on delay. It is an abuse of the process.

3. Mr. Srivastava, learned advocate and Standing Counsel appears on behalf of review-applicant (State).He relies on judgment dated 18 August, 2023 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.1434 of 2023 (Experion Developers Private Limited Vs. Himanshu Dewan, Sonali Dewan and others), paragraphs 26 to 28 in Indian Kanoon print. He submits, the SLP having had been dismissed by the Supreme Court, it does not cause nd merger, for said judgment dated 22 January, 2015 as can be said to have been confirmed, thereby barring right of review.

4. He draws attention to ground no.1 in the review application to submit, there is error apparent in the judgment. It is reproduced below.

"1. Because, the Hon'ble Division Bench while allowing the petition appears to have proceeded on a wrong premise regarding the date of possession, recording it as 06.01.2003. However the date of possession in the present matter is 04.08.1992. The possession had also been transferred to the Kanpur Development Authority in the year 2003. The name of the Urban Ceiling / State Government was recorded in the Revenue Records, in the year 2003. Therefore it is apparent that an error has crept in, and which invites attentions of this Hon'ble Court for Review of the judgment dated 22.01.2015."

(emphasis supplied)

He submits, by said judgment dated 22nd January, 2015 the Division Bench had made error apparent in recording the date of possession to be 6th January, 2003. It was taken long before on 4th August, 1992. He then relies upon a paragraph in said judgment, reproduced below.

"It is stated that from record it appears that the petitioners also inspected the record of the office of the Competent Authority and found that a certificate of possession of 6.1.2003 had, been prepared by the authorities whereby they have shown to have transferred the possession of the excess vacant land of the petitioners to the employees of the Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur. However, a perusal of the said certificate of possession clearly show that the land of plot nos.68,69,70,47 and 125M was shown under cultivation of the petitioners even at the time of preparation of certificate while constructions were shown on the remaining land. This fact itself establishes that purported possession of respondents vide certificate dated 6.1.2003 was a mere paper transaction and petitioners had actual physical possession over the land in dispute even thereafter and uptill now."

(emphasis supplied)

Mr. Srivastava submits, the delay be condoned and as there is error apparent in the judgment under review, it be recalled. The writ petition be posted for hearing once again.

5. Mr. Sanjay Goswami, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners in the writ petition. He opposes only the review application on submission, State itself said in its SLP that advice from the legal department was to file SLP. He reiterates his clients’ contention that after the SLP stood dismissed on