SHIVAJEE RAO Vs. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the applicant/opposite party No. 2 heard on the review petition.

(2.) At the very outset, he submits that all these arguments could not be raised on the last date of final hearing. He contends that now the opposite party No. 2 has engaged a new counsel, who will take a chance of convincing this Commission that no deficiency lies with the Opposite party No. 2. It is interesting to note that this review petition runs into 292 pages. Virtually, Mr. Amit S. Chadha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.

(3.) Written submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that in the impugned judgment, the Commission has placed reliance on the affidavit of one, Shri Sudarshan wherein he claimed to be an eye witness. It was argued that this affidavit is false. In this context, he has invited our attention towards the photocopies of newspaper clips, one of the same reads as follows: