IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.242 of 2008 1. Suresh Narayan Lall, son of late Jagdish Narayan Lall, resident of 7HF-7/3, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna-800 026. 2. Pushpa Kashyap, wife of Bijay Kumar Kashyap, resident of 7HF-6/48, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna-800 026. 3. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, son of Late Brajeshwari Prasad Sinha, resident of 7HF-6/30, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna-800 026. 4. Ashok Kumar Keshri, son of Late Dr. Deep Narain Prasad Keshri, resident of 7HF-6/40, Bahadurpur Housing colony, Patna-800 026. 5. Tulsi Ballani, wife of Shri Murli Manohar Ballani, resident of 7HF-8/19, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna-800 026. 6. Sia Raghubir Ram, son of Late Ram Sakal Ram, resident of 7HF-8/27, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna-800 026. .... Appellants/petitioners. Versus 1. Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, 6-Mangles Road, Patna- 800001. 2. The Committee through its Chairman, Bihar State Housing Board, 6-Mangles Road, Patna- 800 001. 3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6-Mangles Road, Patna-800 001. 4. The Estate Manager, Bihar State Housing Board, 6-Mangles Road, Patna-800 001. 5. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Division-I, Hanuman Nagar, Patna- 800020. 6. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Division-II, Bhoot Nath Ashram Road, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna-800 026. ...Respondents/Respondents/Opp.Parties. 7. Surendra Bahadur Sinha, son of Late Bijay Bahadur Sinha, resident of 7HF-7/28, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna-800 026. 8. Tara Sharan Sinha, son of Late Sita Sharan Sinha, resident of 7HF-8/1, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna-800 026. ...Petitioners/Respondents/Opp.parties. ----------- 04. 4.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha for the opposite parties. This application has been filed for review and/or recall of the order dated 2.9.2008, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.21 of 2008 (Suresh Narayan Lall and others Vs. Bihar State Housing Board and others), whereby the appeal was dismissed and the order on the writ petition passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court was upheld. 2. We first deal with the contention advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that the change of counsel in the review application should not be countenanced. One counsel had appeared in the appeal, and another counsel appears for the petitioners in the present case today. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondents is supported by the judgment in Rotary Club, Begusarai Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2001(1) P.L.J.R. 191. 3. Coming to the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners advanced submission in support of this application which cannot be entertained in view of the narrow confines of review jurisdiction. ` 4. This application is accordingly rejected. (S K Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) S.K.Pathak/