S. Vaidyanathan, J.

1. This Review Application filed for reviewing the judgment dated 26.10.2016 in Writ Appeal No.715 of 2015 on the file of this Court.

2. The Memorandum of Grounds of Review Application proceeds only on two aspects, namely (i) the written submissions/arguments have not been considered and that it contained the authorities in support of the contentions of the review petitioners, and (ii) the Khulanama dated 09.06.2006 is a forged one and by virtue of the Certificate issued by the second respondent, dated 27.06.2006, the review petitioners/writ appellants were deprived of their rights and that the Chief Kazi has dissolved the marriage, thereby permitting the third respondent, namely T.C.A.Mohamed Yusuf to marry another Muslim woman.

3. We have rendered categorical findings in the said Writ Appeal, and the relevant portion of the judgment dated 26.10.2016 passed in W.A.No.715 of 2015 reads as follows:

"13. For the very allegations made by the appellants/writ petitioners, criminal proceedings have already been initiated and the same are pending before the Criminal Court. The veracity or otherwise of the allegations can be gone into by the Criminal Court after following the due process of law. The fact also remains that the criminal proceedings and the claim with regard to the relief sought in the Writ Petition are independent of each other. The allegations made by the appellants/writ petitioners are disputed questions of fact. It is well settled that the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Court is concerned only with the questions of law, but not the questions of fact. The disputed questions of fact have to be dealt with only by the appropriate forum or the Court or the authority, as the case may be and not by this Court. Hence, in our considered opinion, the Writ Petition was not maintainable, as the appellants have to work out their remedy only before the appropriate forum or authority under the appropriate law. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the matter in detail and rightly come to the conclusion, dismissing the Writ Petition. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. We make it clear that the dismissal of this Writ Appeal will not come in the way of the Criminal Court or any other forum or authority in deciding the matter before it, independently on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."

4. Coming to the submission made by the learned counsel for the review petitioners that the decisions/citations/authorities referred to in the written submissions/arguments have not been considered, it is seen that the review petitioners have not furnished the written arguments either to the Court Officer or to the Stenographer. Having failed to give the written arguments in the Open Court and filing it in the Office/Section of the Registry of this Court and thereafter, the counsel having not informed the same to the Court Officer, contending that the written arguments/written submissions have not been considered, is not correct. When judgment was reserved in the Writ Appeal, the bundle will be in the Chambers of the Judge and it is the bounden duty of the counsel to ensure that the written submissions/arguments are tagged along with the main bundle before the judgment is dictated to the Stenographer. Of course, it is also the duty of the staff of the Court (in the Section) to ensure that the written arguments are tied up with the main bundle.

5. In any event, coming to the decisions referred to by the appellants/review petitioners, it is contended that the Chief Kazi has no power to dissolve the marriage between the parties and that he has exercised his power by dissolving the marriage, which amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. According to the review petitioners/writ