JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 84423 of 2003 (ii) Civil Misc. Review Application No. 84426 of 2003 have heard Shri Amitabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The aforementioned Review Application has been filed, interalia, praying for review of the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by Hon’ble R.P. Misra, J. whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed. 3. The Review Application is supported by an affidavit. 4. The aforementioned Delay Condonation Application has been filed, interalia, praying for condoning the delay in filing the Review Application. The Delay Condonation Application is supported by an affidavit. 5. The Review Application was filed on 6.5.2003, and thus, was beyond time by 30 days. 6. Having regard to the averments made in the Delay Condonation Application and its supporting affidavit, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay in filing the Review Application. 7. The Delay Condonation Application is accordingly allowed. 8. The delay in filing the Review Application is condoned. 9. Having condoned the delay in filing the Review Application, the Court is proceeding to consider the Review Application. 10. The order dated 7.3.2003 passed by this Court is reproduced below: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter relates to allotment of Chaks. This is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.” 11. A perusal of the Review Application shows that the main ground for seeking review of the above order dated 7.3.2003 passed by this Court is that the orders impugned in the Writ Petition were illegal, and this Court was not correct in dismissing the Writ Petition. Thus, the petitioner is questioning the merits of the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the Court whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed summarily. 12. Shri Amitabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view of this Court that as the matter related to allotment of chaks, it was not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was not correct. It is submitted that this Court has exercised its Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even where the matter related to allotment of chaks. 13. I have considered the submissions made by Shri Amitabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. It is submitted that this Court has exercised its Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even where the matter related to allotment of chaks. 13. I have considered the submissions made by Shri Amitabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. It is well settled that the Court while dealing with a Review Application cannot act as an Appellate Court and consider the merits of the judgment sought to be reviewed. A Review Application cannot be an Appeal in disguise [See: Lal Mohammad v. S.D.O., Bareilly and another, 1959 ALJ 223; Smt. Savitri Devi v. Lal Chand (dead) and others, 2004 (55) ALR 690 (para 45) : 2004 All. L.J. 3445 (paragraph 46)]. 15. In my view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the grounds taken in the Writ Petition seek to challenge the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by this Court on merits. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by this Court, it was open to him to seek appropriate remedy before the higher Court. In the Review Application, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the order dated 7.3.2003 on merits. 16. The Review Application is misconceived, and the same is liable to be rejected. 17. The Review Application is accordingly rejected. ————