1. These two petitions are quite unfortuate and taken as a measure of the level to which the proceedings before this Court has gone down, they leave this Court indignant, disturbed and sorrowful. In both the civil review petition and the writ petition the common prayer was for the review of the judgment and order dated 27-6-2000* passed in CWJC No. 6694 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the main case). The only difference was that while the civil review petition was filed on behalf of the party which was respondent No. 4 in the main case, the writ petition was filed by certain persons who were neither parties to the main case nor could they be said to have any concern with the issue (s) arising in the main case. The writ petition was clearly intended to be a prop for the civil review petition; it was filed quite irresponsibly and without giving any thought regarding its maintainability. But in the case of the writ petition better sense prevailed at an early stage and the counsel appearing for the petitioners in that case, realised the mistake in filing the writ petition without losing much time. Within moments of the commencement of the submissions on the writ petition (o