S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. After condoning the delay, by consent, this review petition is taken up for admission.

2. It is most unfortunate and we must bring this to the notice of all concerned that routinely, review petitions are filed in this Court, after the orders under review are unsuccessfully challenged before the higher Court but liberty is sought to present a review petition. The higher Court, with greatest respect, is informed that certain points or arguments, allegedly crucial to the case and going to the root of the matter were either not canvassed or canvassed but not considered. Such an argument is raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at the instance of the aggrieved parties by a counsel instructed by an advocate who had no opportunity to argue the matter before this Court. After the Hon'ble Supreme Court is persuaded to grant liberty to file a review petition, invariably such review petitions are filed and argued by the parties through different set of advocates and who were not on record or engaged to argue when the orders under review are passed. This set of advocates present the review petition and seek to re-argue the matter by relying on the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. That argument, according to the counsel and in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's liberty, permits us to go behind the order under review as if we are exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction. If something that allegedly goes to the root of the case has not been considered, but which would entail a detailed inquiry and virtual re-hearing of the matter, is a permissible exercise is the submission and essentially based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order. With respect, it is urged that such order would then define the ambit of our power of review. This only means that we must disregard the legal parameters of review jurisdiction and its limited nature. The statutory scheme as far as review is concerned is then overridden and enables the parties to take chances again and again. Surely, that is not the purpose of review jurisdiction.

3. In this case, precisely that is attempted and Mr. Prateek Seksaria would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having noted the contention of the above nature that we should consider this review petition on merits.

4. The order under review has been carefully perused by us and equally the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself proceeds on the basis that the submissions noted by it have not been canvassed before the High Court and therefore, they were not dealt with. With greatest respect, para 12 at pages 11-12 of the writ petition memo is relied upon and which para itself would indicate that the very petitioners, who had approached this Court earlier, pleaded in this para that no purpose was served by acquiring the property as the respondents have failed to offer any amicable solutions to the tenants/occupants on account of lack of funds. Moreover, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the property owners cases challenging the constitutional validity of Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, the said property could not be conveyed in favour of petitioner No. 1 and it is impossible for the tenants/occupants, in view of the dangerous condition of the building to reside there. It is in these circumstances that the further pleading in this para is that though the petitioner moved the acquisition proposal, but in view of the dispute with the landlord and the larger challenge, namely, to the constitutional validity of Chapter VIIIA pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no further steps could be taken. It is stated in this paragraph that at present the landlord and the petitioner have arrived at an amicable settlement, whereby the property can be redeveloped and the proposal for acquisition made in the year 1990 can be recalled and cancelled. Paras 11 and 12