M. Satyanarayana Murthy and Ors. v. Mandal Revenue Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer

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 con­ donation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and not at all reasonable. Be­ sides, 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 1 M.S. MURTHY v. MAND AL REVENUE OFFICER > 125 successive review petitions against the same order is not permissible more A 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 unex­ plained inordinate delay and on merits with Rs. 5,000 as costs. The direc­ tions with regard to disbursement of the costs shall be issued after the same are deposited in the Registry. R.P. Petition dismissed.