Headnote
The reporters’ summary of the points decided. It is not part of the judgment.
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY AND ORS.
v. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER CUM LAND ACQUISITJON OFFICER AUGUST 25, 1998
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 : ~
A1ticle 137-Review-Second review-Delay-Explanation unsatisfact01y and not reasonable-Held, recourse to successive review petitions against same order not pe1111issible more so because no e1mr apparent on the record has been brought out-Filing of second review petition is an abuse of process of cowt-Review petition dismissed with costs-Review-Limitation.
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. RPD No. 17573 of 1998. In Civil Appeal Nos. 8743-8745 of 1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.94 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Nos. 497, 644/91 and A.S. No. 1350 of 1991. Vimal Dave for the Petitioners/Appellants.
.. ,.,. .
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
There is a delay of 2 years and 321 days in filing this review petition. The explanation for the delay contained in the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and not at all reasonable. Besides, we also find that the petitioners had filed earlier also a review G petition No. 214 of 1995 against the same order, which was dismissed by this Court on 22.2.1995. Both in the memorandum of the review petition and in the application seeking condonation of delay, though this fact is · mentioned, but the number of the review petition has been left blank and so also the date on which the same was dismissed. This shows the casual H manner in which this second review petition has been filed. Recourse to • 124
M.S. MURTHY v. MAND AL REVENUE OFFICER
> successive review petitions against the same order is not permissible more so because no error apparent on the record had been brought out. It appears to us that the petitioners are unnecessarily taking liberties. The filing of the Second review petition is an abuse of the process of the court. We, therefore, dismiss this review petition both on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay and on merits with Rs. 5,000 as costs. The directions with regard to disbursement of the costs shall be issued after the same are deposited in the Registry. R.P.
Petition dismissed.