(1.) THIS review petition is filed for review of the order passed by this Court on 4/1/2006 in RSA. 19/2005. The review petitioner was respondent in RSA. 19/2005. There is a delay of 1,378 days In filing the review petition.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioner.
(3.) I have gone through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application. Even if the entire averment made in the affidavit is accepted, the same does not make out any sufficient ground to condone the delay of 1,378 days delay in filing the review petition. Even on merits, it is clear that the observations made by this Court is on the basis of the well settled principles of law. However, the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, the appellant in RSA.19/2005 is dismissed on the ground that there is concurrent finding on the question of fact about the properties which are liable to be partitioned and the share to which the appellant is entitled and the equitable partition is to be worked out in the final decree proceedings. Having regard to the concurrent finding arrived at by the Courts below, this Court held that no substantial question of law is to be decided among the parties arising in the appeal - R.S.A. No. 19/2005 and accordingly, dismissed the appeal on 4/1/2006. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal since those observations have been made at the time of considering the admission of the appeal, without issuing notice to the respondents and the observations so made cannot be made use of against the respondents in the appeal and no error or illegality has been pointed out in the order passed by this Court and the review petitioner is only seeking for clarification and since the order has been passed without issuing of notice to the review petitioner, it is clear that the review petition is also liable to be disposed of.