Smt. Prabhawati Devi vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Prabhawati Devi vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 774 days in filing the review application condoned (C. M. Application No. 01 of 2025 disposed of) and the review application treated as filed within time; however, the prayer for review of the judgment and order dated 18.01.2023 is rejected.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 774 days in filing the review application ought to be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

The reasons given in the affidavit in support of the condonation application are sufficient; the delay in filing the review application is condoned and the review application shall be treated to have been filed within time.

Ratio / Principle

Counsel for the applicant failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment for which review has been prayed for.

Key takeaways

The arguments raised on the basis of the Regulations of 2010 (as amended from time to time) were not raised before the Court at the time when the case was decided; rehearing cannot be given to the petitioner and the application for review is rejected.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review application under case type CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE (CMRAD No. 55 of 2025), Smt. Prabhawati Devi v. Union of India (through Secretary, Ministry of Defence) and others, decided by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J. and Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) on September 12, 2025. The applicant sought review of a judgment and order dated 18.01.2023 stated to have been passed by one of the Bench members sitting with Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Sinha. By C.M. Application No. 01 of 2025, the Bench condoned the office-reported delay of 774 days in filing the review application, holding the reasons in the supporting affidavit sufficient, and directed that the review application be treated as filed within time. On merits, the Bench held that counsel failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, and that the arguments now advanced on the basis of the Regulations of 2010 (as amended from time to time) had not been raised when the case was originally decided; observing that rehearing cannot be given to the petitioner, the review application was rejected.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 55 of 2025

Smt. Prabhawati Devi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence New Delhi And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sarvesh Kumar Verma, Satya Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 2

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

(C. M. Application No. 01 of 2025)

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application.

The office has reported a delay of 774 days in filing of the review application.

We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing the review application.

Reasons given in the affidavit are sufficient.

The delay in filing the review application is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

The review application shall be treated to have been filed within time.

Order on review application

This review application has been filed praying for review of judgement and order dated 18.01.2023 passed by one of us sitting alongwith Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Sinha, as he was then holding Court.

The matter has been nominated to this Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at some length. He has failed

CMRAD No. 55 of 2025

2

to point out any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgement for which review has been prayed for.

The arguments that have been raised on the basis of Regulations of 2010, as amended from time to time, was not raised before the Court at the time when the case was decided.

Rehearing cannot be given to the petitioner, the application for review is rejected.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

September 12, 2025

Darpan Sharma

Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench