Shantilal Manganlal and Anr. v. Chunnilal Ranchoddas Through Lrs. and Ors.

205 CHINNAPPA REDDY, J, This~pplication for Review is nothin~ If 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (I 985] I S.C.R. short of an abuse of the process of the Court and a waste of the time of this Court, time which has now become so dear and prec'ous because of the daily mounting arrears. No ground for seeking a review ismen tioned or even hinted at in the petition. In the first para­ graph of the petition it is stated "This is an application for Review of the order dated 9.12. 83, whereby this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the above Snecial Leave to Appeal (Civil). The said order discloses an error apparent on the face of the record as will be clear from perusal of the various grounds and facts mentioned in the petition. for Special Leave to Appeal. ft is submitted that since ·the order is unsustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the ca,e, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review the order". Jn the second paragrnph we are told that no detailed grounds have been taken (though in point of fact not a single ground is even mentioned) as limitation is about to expire and "If so advised, further set of grounds would be submitted for the consideration of the Hon'ble Court" The petition was filed on 9 1.1984 and nothing has been done though more than six months have passed since then. The offer to file detailed grounds remains an unredeemed promise. Possibly he was advised to file no further grounds as there was none to be submitted. Good words were not to be thrown away after bad. To that extent, we may consider ourselves spared. We must however express our deep dissatisfaction and anguish with the indiscriminate manner in which petitions for special leave and petitions for review are being filed. The present application is entirely frivolous and is accordingly dismissed. S.R. Petition dismissed. ,