(Prayer: This Review Petition is filed Under Order 47 rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC, praying to review the order dated 08.01.2016 on Ia-2/2015 in W.P.No.17548/2014 and restore the report of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, dated 21.02.2015, produced at Annexure-E, in the interest of justice.)Suraj Govindaraj, J.1. Though the matter is listed for orders on Interloculatory applications, by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.2. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 8.01.2016 passed on IA-2/2015 in W.P.No. 17548/2014 and to restore the report of the Hon'ble Lokayukta dated 21.02.2015.3. The 3rd respondent herein was the petitioner in WP.No.17548/2014 and said writ petition came to be disposed of on 13.7.2015. On an application filed by 3rd Respondent seeking clarification of said order vide IA-2/2015 this court by order dated 8.01.2016 had clarified as under:"This application is filed for clarification of the order dt. 13-07-2015. This Court after hearing the parties, by a detailed order allowed the writ petition and quashed the report submitted by the Lokayukta under Sec. 12(1) and 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokyukta Act, 1984. Further it was made clear, subsequent notices issued to the petitioner by the authorities, on the basis of the said report are also quashed. Now the grievance is, in the original writ petition filed, the relief sought for was, quashing of the report under Sec.12(3) of the Act.It is not in dispute, though there was an order of stay granted by this Court, the Government sought a report from the Lokayukta under Sec. 7(2)(a) of the Act on 10-01-2014. in consequence thereof, the Lokayukta submitted a report dt. 21-02- 2015 reiterating that the orders passed by the lokyukta earlier are correct. After considering the case on merit, in para 30 of our judgment, we have categorically stated that the proceddings before the Lokayukata, the orders passed and subsequent actionpurported to have been taken by the authorities in pursuance of the report under Sec. 12(3) of the Act are without jurisdiction, null and void and therefore, they are all hereby quashed. In the operative portion of the order, we have said, the report under Sec. 12(1) and 12 (3) of the Act and subsequent notices issued to the petitioner by the authorities are all quashed. We have omitted to mention that the communication addressed by the Government to the Lokayukta under Sec.7(2)(a) on 10-01- 2014 and the report of the Lokyukta dt. 21-02-2015 are not quashed expressly. But as could be seen there from, we have stated above, the communication dated 10.01.2014 and the report dated 21.02.2015 also stands quashed. In the course of our judgment, we have clearly stated, the complaint itself was not maintainable and all the proceedings initiated in pursuance of such a complaint are all void ab initio.With this clarification, I.A. is closed."4. Petitioner has filed the present review petition on 13.03.2018 seeking review of above order dated 8.01.2016 passed on IA-2/2015 in W.P.No.17548/2104. On certain office objections having been raised including as regards delay in filing, IA-1/2019 came to be filed on 30.01.2019 seeking condonation of delay of 754 days in filing of the review petition. Subsequent thereto notice came to be ordered and all of the respondents have entered appearance. 3rd respondent has filed objections to IA-1/2019 viz., for condonation of delay.5. As noticed above, there is a delay in filing.Condonation of delay application came to be filed belatedly on 30.01.2019. In the affidavit filed in support of said application, only ground urged is that report under Section 7(2) of the Act had not been placed before this Court in W.P.No.17548/2017, hence, he had applied for grant of copy of the same on 3.10.2015 which was not furnished to him. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Commissioner for Information and Communication on 25.06.2016, pursuant to which copy of the report was furnished to him on 4.01.2017.6. Petitioner has also stated that he came to know of the order of this Court dated 8.01.2016 in the second week of August 2017 and hence, he approached his counsel in the second week of September 2017, obtained certified copy of the Interloculatory application and order and has immediately filed the Review Petition on 13.03.2018. He states that delay caused is on account of not getting proper information from the office of Director of Mines and Geology. The delay is unintentional and bonafide and therefore, petitioner seeks for condonation of delay of 754 days in filing the Review Petition.7. On service of notice 3rd respondent has filed objections opposing the condonation of delay application. Amongst other contentions, 3rd respondent contends that petitioner is negligent and there are no bonafides; present review petition is one more in the several rounds of litigation to harass 3rd respondent. It is also urged that review is sought for only in respect of order dated 8.01.2016 passed on IA-2/2015 and neither review nor challenge is sought to be made to the main order dated 13.07.2015, said order having become final, petitioner cannot challenge the clarificatory order. 3rd respondent denies the averments made by the petitioner that he got the knowledge of the order dated 8.01.2016 in the second week of August 2016. It is categorically stated that order on IA for clarification was passed after hearing all the parties concerned including the counsel for review petitioner, State and Lokayukta. Explanation given by the petitioner for condonation of delay is unsustainable and therefore, application is liable to be dismissed.8. We have heard Sri. Khaleemullah Shariff, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri.Kiran Kumar, learned HCGP for 1st respondent, Sri.Venkatesh S.Arabatti, learned counsel for 2nd respondent, Sri.D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior counsel along with Sri.Anirudh Anand, learned counsl for 3rd respondent.9. Sri.Khaleemulla Shariff, learned counsel contends that petitioner is entitled to seek for review of the order dated 8.01.2016 on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the order dated 8.01.2016 on account of the fact that:(i) When this Court passed the order dated 8.01.2016, the report of the Lokayukta dated 21.2.2015 was not on record;(ii) If the said report had been on record, this Court would not have set-aside the report.(iii) Review petitioner who was the 3rd respondent therein could not properly reply to the application IA-2/2015 since review petitioner did not have a copy of the report at that point of time;(iv) prayer sought for in IA-2/2015 which came to be granted by this Court was impermissible.10. Per contra, Sri.D.L.N.Rao, learned Senior counsel contends there are no grounds made out for review. He further contends that review petition has to be dismissed solely on the ground of same being barred by limitation and condonation of delay application filed by petitioner is without merit and no suitable or acceptable reason for delay has been assigned.11. Counsel for 3rd respondent has relied upon a decision in Samaj parivartana Samudaya and others -v- State of Karnataka and others [(2013) 8 SCC 154] wherein the Hob'ble Apex Court has held thus:"47. We make it clear that we have not understood the above statement as an admission on the part of the Federation and it is on a consideration of the totality of the facts placed before us that we accept the findings of the survey conducted by the Joint Team constituted by the orders of this Court and the boundaries of each of the leases determined on that basis. We further direct that in supersession of all orders either of the authorities of the State or courts, as may be, the boundaries of leases fixed by the Joint Team will henceforth be the boundaries of each of the lesees who will have the benefit of the lease area as determined by the Joint Team. All proceedings pending in any court with regard to boundaries of the leases involved in the present proceeding shall stand adjudicated by means of present order and no such question would be open for re- examination by anybody or authority."to contend Review Petition is not maintainable.12. Learned Senior counsel would also contend that in view of the above finding rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, all proceedings pending in Court with regard to boundary of the leased property would not be open for re-examination by anybody or any authority. Hence, above decision of the Apex Court having been rendered on 18.04.2013, Lokayukata could not have enquired into boundaries and/or the sketch pertaining to lease granted in favour of 3rd respondent. Hence, he submits that review petition is not maintainable.13. Learned Senior counsel has also relied upon decision in the matter of Bangalore Development Authority -v- Vijaya Leasing Limited and others (2013) 14 SCC 737, by referring to paragraph 17 which reads:"Therefore, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the learned Single Judge came across the above incongruities in the proceedings of the Hon'ble Minister which resulted in the issuance of de-notification dated 05.10.1999. We fail to note as to how the ultimate order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside such a patent illegality can be held to be beyond the powers vested in the Constitutional Court. The conclusion of this Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Case (supra) that judicial daring is not daunted when glaring injustice demands even affirmative action and that authorities exercising their powers should not exceed the statutory jurisdiction and correctly administer the law laid down by the statute under which they act are all principles which are to be scrupulously followed and when a transgression of their limits is brought to the notice of the Court in the course of exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot be held that interference in such an extraordinary situation to set right an illegality was unwarranted."14. Learned Senior counsel contends that after observing the great injustice which has been caused as also gross misuse of the jurisdiction exercised by the Lokayukta, this court by order dated 8.01.2016 has granted reliefs sought for by the 3rd respondent and the report dated 21.02.2015 of the Lokayukta has been rightly quashed, in accordance with law and same cannot now be interfered with by way of a review petition.15. Having heard the parties the questions that arise for determination are:a. Whether the grounds made out in the application filed for condonation of delay are proper?b. What order?16. The nature of averments made in the condonation of delay application, as also in the objections to the said application would require us to advert to the merits of the matter in brief, lest it be contended that review petition has been dismissed on a technical ground, more so, in view of the several rounds of litigation that the present dispute has seen over the last decade.FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR LITIGATION:17. Writ Petition No.17548/2014 came to be filed by 3rd respondent herein seeking for quashing the report filed under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ('Act' for short) issued by the Lokayukta (2nd respondent therein) dated 13.03.2014, as also the communication issued by the Lokayukta to the petitioner therein dated 18.03.2014.18. By virtue of said report issued under Section 12(3), recommendation was made by the Lokayukta to the competent Authority to cancel the mining lease and licence issued to the petitioner, if already granted or to reject the application for renewal of the mining lease, if not granted, as also to initiate criminal proceedings against the 3rd Respondent for violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act and Indian Penal Code.19. It was the case of the petitioner therein who is 3rd respondent herein that one Mr.Ahmed Hussain (father of review Petitioner) had applied for grant of mining lease which came to be rejected as the said land overlapped with that of the 3rd respondent herein. There were several litigations between the parties. Ultimately Ahmed Hussain in W.P.No.7269/1995 had made a categorical statement that he does not wish to pursue his challenge to the grant of lease in favour of 3rd respondent herein.20. However, once again in the year 2006 when writ petitioner applied for grant of mining lease, the same was again rejected on the ground that the area sought for by the petitioner herein overlapped with the mining lease already held by 3rd respondent herein. Thus, ensued one more round of litigation.21. W.P.No.15723/2011 was filed by the review petitioner challenging the same which came to be dismissed on 1.3.2012. Apart from the above writ petition, another writ petition had been filed by the review petitioner in W.P.No.15723/2011 alleging that 3rd respondent is working outside the leased area, which also came to be dismissed.22. W.P.Nos.25255-56/2009 was filed by the review petitioner questioning the orders of Controller of Mines and Appellate Authority, who had rejected the request of the petitioner for certain information pertaining to the approved mining plan relating to the 3rd respondent which came to be dismissed.23. W.P.No.11290/2010 came to be filed by the review petitioner challenging the grant of mining lease to the 3rd respondent which came to be dismissed as withdrawn.24. W.P.No.38138/2009 was filed by the review petitioner seeking for extension of validity of permits and to issue forest transit pass which came to be dismissed on 8.12.2011 on account of the withdrawal memo filed by the petitioner.25. In all review petitioner had filed five proceedings against 3rd respondent herein.26. During the process of renewal of lease, the petitioner was also apparently successful in prevailing upon the Director, Department of Mines and Geology by misleading him to recommend rejection of the renewal application filed by the 3rd respondent.27. W.P.No.3476/2012 was filed by the 3rd respondent challenging the above which came to be allowed on 16.02.2012.28. The Director of Mines and Geology rejected the application which came to be challenged by the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.23645/2012 when this Court by its order dated 13.07.2012 had set-aside the said order and held that Director of Mines and Geology had no jurisdiction to recommend rejection of the renewal application filed by 3rd respondent.Reports by Lokayukta :1st Report29. It is at this stage that review petitioner had approached the Lokayukta by filing a complaint on 13.05.2010 alleging that 3rd respondent was carrying on mining activity illegally. Acting on the said complaint, Lokayukta passed an order under Section 12(3) of the Act, wherein several recommendations were made to initiate action against officers of the Department of Mines and Geology, as also to cancel the mining lease granted in favour of 3rd respondent etc.,30. It was this report which came to be challenged by the 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.17548/2014 and this Court by order dated 20.06.2014 issued rule nisi and stayed the operation of the report of the Lokayukta dated 13.03.2014 issued under Section 12(3) of the Act, as also the communication of Lokayukta addressed to 3rd respondent dated 18.3.2014.31. After hearing the parties, considering all the facts, documents and applicable law in detail, this Court by order dated 13.07.2015 held that action taken by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) was void ab initio and could not be sustained. This being so, since Lokayukta had acted on a private complaint filed by the petitioner based on selfserving allegations which had been negatived by the Court and all the proceedings initiated by the petitioner came to be set-aside. This Court had held that the review petitioner having lost all the legal battles, Lokayukta should not have conducted any investigation under the Act in respect of a complaint filed by the petitioner herein. In view thereof this Court quashed the report issued by the Lokayukta dated 13.03.2014 under Section 12(3) of the Act, as also communication issued by the Lokayukta dated 18.03.2014 by way of order dated 13.07.2015.2nd report:32. Ostensibly acting under a direction of the State Government under Section 7(2-A) of the Act dated 10.01.2014 wherein reference was made to Lokayukta to investigate/enquire and find out as to which official was responsible for creating the sketch appended to the order dated 18.07.2013 which according to the State Government was a fabricated document. Hence, the Lokayukta had once again taken up the matter for investigation and had submitted a report even though the earlier report had been quashed.33. A perusal of the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka relating to renewal of the mining lease No.2141 held by 3rd respondent herein (Annexure- D to the review petition) indicates that there was consideration of complaint filed by Mohammed Hussain and his son Mohammad Tanveer (review petitioner herein) and it is on the basis of the said complaint Lokayukta was asked to enquire into the matter. Pursuant thereto Lokayukta submitted a report dated 21.02.2015 (Annexure-E to the Review Petition) whereunder, it was opined that sketch was not unauthorized and same was proper. Hence, question of investigating into who are the officers/officials responsible for the creation of an unauthorized sketch, would not arise. Said report of the Lokayukta at several places makes mention of and takes into account the complaint filed by the review petitioner. The report dated 21.2.2015 also makes a reference to the earlier report dated 13.03.2014 submitted by the Lokayukta under Section 12 of the Act.34. Surprisingly, said report does not speak of the challenge made by the 3rd respondent herein to the earlier report in W.P.No.17548/2014, the initial stay thereof or the order dated 20.06.2014 whereby said report dated 13.03.2014 had been quashed. Despite quashing of said report dated 13.03.2014 by the Writ Court, the Lokayukta continued with the enquiry and submitted a report dated 21.02.2015.ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED:35. 3rd respondent/writ petitioner therein filed IA-2/2015 on 5.11.2015 contending that despite this Court having quashed all orders passed by Lokayukta and subsequent action purported to have been taken in pursuance of the report under Section 12(3) of the Act as being without jurisdiction null and void and thereby sought clarification of the order dated 13.07.2015 contending that since this Court by order dated 13.07.2015 had already held the proceedings before the Lokayukta and orders passed by him as well as subsequent action purported to have been taken by the authorities pursuant to the report issued under Section 12(3) of the Act are all without jurisdiction, null and void and quashed the same, subsequent report dated 21.02.2015 would also be without jurisdiction and being a subsequent report/action is deemed to have been quashed.36. Said application came to be served on the counsel appearing for review petitioner. Interestingly review petitioner did not file any objections to said application.37. This court having heard the counsel appearing for the parties including counsel for review petitioner by order dated 8.01.2016 allowed the application in IA-2/2015 and clarified that since Lokayukta had no jurisdiction, the proceedings before the Lokayukta were null and void, any orders including the report submitted by Lokayukta dated 22.01.2015 would also stand quashed. It was also held that complaint itself was not maintainable, all the proceedings initiated in pursuance of such complaint was void-ab-initio.38. It is this order dated 8.01.2016 that the petitioner has sought for review by filing the present petition on 13.03.2018.CONDONATION OF DELAY :39. The grounds urged in support of prayer for condonation of delay has been noticed earlier. Applicant seeking condonation of delay is required to explain the cause for delay by indicating factual basis and is also required to place all facts for consideration. False or incorrect statements is impermissible.40. The first ground urged is that petitioner came to know of the order dated 8.01.2016 in the second week of August 2017, as if to contend that limitation would commence from that date. By making such a bland statement, petitioner seeks to get over delay of about 19 months. Admittedly, order dated 8.01.2016 was passed after hearing all the parties including the counsel for review petitioner. Hence, contention of the review petitioner that he was not aware of the order dated 8.01.2016 cannot be accepted at all.41. Second ground urged is that petitioner had applied for the report of the Lokayukata dated 22.01.2015 on 3.10.2015 and was able to obtain the same on 14.08.2017 and it is thereafter he had filed the present Review Petition on 13.03.2018. The statements made in the affidavit are not supported by any documents. There is no piece of paper whatsoever which has been produced to demonstrate or establish that an application had been filed by petitioner on 3.10.2015 under the Right to Information Act or that he filed an appeal before the appropriate Authority and/or that the said report was finally furnished to the petitioner on 14.08.2017.42. Be that as it may. Even, if what is stated by the petitioner is true, even then petitioner ought to have filed Review petition by 13.09.2017 (within 30 days from the date of receipt of the report) which admittedly has not been done and it was filed on 13.03.2018. There is no explanation whatsoever offered by the petitioner for the delay commencing from 13.09.2017 to 13.03.2018. This delay not having been explained is fatal to the case of the petitioner.43. Incongruity of the statement made by the petitioner is writ large in the affidavit filed in support of the Review Petition, in the sense that if review petitioner came to know of the order dated 8.01.2016 in the second week of August, 2017, there is no reason for the petitioner to have applied for the report on 3.10.2015, followed up with filing an appeal before the appropriate authority and thereafter before the Commissioner of Information and Communication on 25.02.2016. Apparently, the said report according to the petitioner was not obtained for filing of the present review petition. Since an application for a copy of the same was filed much prior to the order subject matter of the present review petition was passed.44. The statements made by the petitioner on oath in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay are blatant falsehood and therefore, discretionary power to condone the delay caused cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner.45. As aforesaid lest it be contended that Review Petition has been disposed of on a technical ground, we have adverted to the facts of the matter. From the facts, as stated above, it is clear that there are no grounds which have been made out in the petition to seek review of the order dated 8.01.2016. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that the report dated 21.02.2015 had not been produced before this Court and if at all this Court had the benefit of perusal of the said report, the same could not have been set-aside or quashed by order dated 8.01.2016.46. Such a ground is not one which is available under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Applicant seeking review of an order has to strictly comply with the requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 or in other words ingredients indicated therein has to be satisified. In the event of applicant being unable to comply with the same, review petition would not be maintainable.47. Hon'ble Supreme court in catena of decisions has laid down as to when and in what manner a review petition can be considered. It would be profitable to refer to a few of them.48. In the matter of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose [1954 AIR 526], the grounds for allowing review has been laid down and it reads:"Under Order XLVII, rule I of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified, grounds namely(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed,(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and(iii) for any other sufficient reason."49. The Supreme court in the above decision has also interpreted the words "any other sufficient reason" to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".50. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. [(1979) 4 SCC 389], Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned that power of review does not mean exercise of Appellate power:"There are definitive limits to the exercise of power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court"51. In Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Others [AIR 2013 SC 3301], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held a Review application is maintainable in the event of:"(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, affect the exercise due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;(iii) Any other sufficient reason The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that a Review application is not maintainable in the below circumstances:(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential important;(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case;(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.(v) A review is by no means an Appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the Appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the Review Petition.(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."52. In Sow Chandra Kanta And Another vs Sheik Habib reported in [1975 SCC (4) 457] Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically cautioned that "Review proceeding does not amount to a re-hearing. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and over-ruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectua
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
lly covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient."53. In Parison Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and others [(1997) 8 SCC 715], the Hon'ble supreme Court has clarified as to what is meant by error apparent on the face of the record as under:"Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.""54. From the above, it is clear that no party can seek review of an order as a matter of right. Before seeking review of an order or Judgment passed, such party seeking review has to satisfy the requirements of Order 47 rule 1 of the CPC.55. The Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Others [AIR 2013 SC 3301], has laid down the grounds on which a review application is maintainable, as also the grounds on which review application is not maintainable.56. The review petition filed, arguments advanced by the petitioner in the instant case do not satisfy the requirements of either Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above.57. Petitioner has been unable to establish any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record nor has been able to provide any good reason or ground which would qualify to be a sufficient reason to review the order dated 8.01.2016. In fact, the arguments which have been advanced by the petitioner are the very grounds that the Apex Court held would not entitle an applicant to seek for review. Petitioner has only repeated the overruled arguments and has virtually sought for rehearing the entire proceedings by re-agitating the dispute that had ensued between petitioner and 3rd respondent. Petitioner having not filed any appeal challenging the main order dated 13.07.2015 has sought to misuse the process of this Court by treating an application for review as an appeal in disguse. Hence, on this ground also Review Petition is not maintainable.58. As regards the contention that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the order dated 8.01.2016, nor do we find any such error.59. In view of the above, we find that Petition for review filed by the petitioner is one more litigation in the long line of litigation initiated by the petitioner against 3rd respondent herein to achieve his malafide intended purposes. Such abuse of process of this Court cannot be permitted. Hence, Review petition is dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner payable to Advocates' Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today.