( 1 ) HEARD Sri M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel representing the review petitioner and Sri S. V. Ramachandra Murthy, party-in-person. For the reasons explained in c. M. P. No. 3348 of 2002 the delay in representation of review application is hereby condoned.

( 2 ) THE matter initially came up before honourable Dr. Justice Motilal B. Naik and myself inasmuch as the other learned Judge hon ble Sri Justice B. Subhashan Reddy, who is a party to the judgment delivered in the aforesaid L. P. A. at present is not sitting judge of this Court and was transferred as the Hon ble Chief Justice of High Court of madras. When the matter came up before the Division Bench consisting of Hon ble dr. Justice Motilal B. Naik and myself on 12-7-2001 at the stage of hearing the review cmp, it was brought to our notice that as provided under Order 47 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the review petition is to be heard only by such of those Judges who are party to the decision, provided if one of them is retired or transferred and the other continues, there is no embargo for the Judge who still continues to hear the review application. Order 47 Rule 5 of Code of Civil procedur