The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review cannot be sought on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, and the limitations of the power of review were emphasized.

( 2 ) BY Application No. 30451 of 2005, review of the judgment ot this Court dated 11 -8-2004 has been sought and by application No. 29291 of 2004, six months time has been prayed for vacating the properties in question.

( 3 ) ON the close of arguments, learned counsel who argued the matter from both sides, submitted that they may give brief note which may facilitate this Court in passing the order and thus, brief note/submission given has not been made part of record and that has been just perused. A brief note given by Sri Singh, learned counsel in support of review petition is clearly reiteration of various facts and details in the light of evidence which is the part of counter-affidavit filed in the writ petitions and thus they are reiteration of the facts and details on which re-appraisal and re-hearing appears to be an effort which for the reasons indicated in this order and within limited scope of consideration may not be permissible.

( 4 ) ISSUE in the writ petition was about validity and propriety of the auction sale of three houses i. e. House No. 16/20, 16/20-B and 16/20-C situated in Civil Lines, kanpur which were auctioned for small dues of the sales tax department for a total amount of Rs. 1,61,000/ -. After lengthy arguments from both sides, writ petition was allowed and auction proceedings were quashed and the respondent-auction-purchaser was directed to handover possession of the properties in question within a period of six months to the petitioner and bid amount along with interest was directed to be returned to the auction-purchaser, within a period of six weeks from the date of moving application as indicated in the judgment. The judgment of this Court was challenged by respondent-auction-purchaser by filing special Leave Petition before the Apex Court through S. L. P. No. 27062-27063 of 2004 which were dismissed by the Apex Court by judgment dated 24-1-2005. It is thereafter, these applications have been filed by the respondents in the writ petition.

( 5 ) SRI V. B. Singh, learned Senior advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Saran, learned advocate has been heard in support of these applications and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain and Sri b. D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocates assisted by their colleagues have been heard in opposition thereof.

( 6 ) AT the start of arguments, besides other preliminary objection that after dismissal of S. L. P. by the Apex Court, these applications are not maintainable, it was also vehemently pressed by Sri B. D. Mandhyan. learned Senior Advocate that filing of review petition by another advocate who was not counsel at the time of hearing of writ petition is neither permissible in law nor otherwise it can be said to be proper. Submission is that new counsel cannot be in a position by keeping in mind that in fact what was argued before writ Court and what transpired during course of argument and thus submission is that review application is to be rejected on this short ground. After dismissal of S. L. P. by Apex Court, any change in the judgment of this Court by review petition was also objected.

( 7 ) SRI Singh, learned Senior Advocate who was not a counsel in the writ petition. in response to the aforesaid objection submits that although. he was not counsel when writ petition was heard but on the basis of materials as exists and in the light of finding so given by writ Court, he can file and argue review petition and otherwise review petition has been filed on valid grounds.

( 8 ) IN respect to the question that whether a new counsel can file and argue review petition, learned advocates from both sides placed reliance on the decision given by the apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu electricity Board v. N. Raju Rcddiar, 1997 (1) JT (SC) 486 : (AIR 1997 SC 1005 ).

( 9 ) IN view of aforesaid rival contention, this Court has examined the matter in issue.

( 10 ) SO far the propriety of filin