1. Heard.

2. These two applications are complete abuse of the process of this Court. They are not only thoroughly misconceived, as we shall see, but, in my view, are mischievous in their conceptualization and devious in the manner in which they are laid. I will come to the details presently, but the long and short of the case in each is this: a series of orders facilitated the completion of construction of a halted and nearly abandoned construction project in Bengaluru. There were very many stakeholders, including different flat purchasers and the land owners. The numbers of flat purchasers ran into the hundreds. In an effort to ensure that the project was completed, a scheme was evolved. The developer had thrown up his hands. A provisional liquidator had been earlier appointed of the developer company. The land owners and the flat purchasers came together and appointed a contractor and a project management consultant. The land owner contributed money. An assessment was done by which it was estimated that project completion would cost an additional Rs. 250/- per sq ft. Arrangements were made for contribution. For those who did not contribute, the land owner agreed to make