( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 2 ) THIS second review/modification application has been preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 7. 9. 2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52933 of 2002 as well as the judgment and order dated 20. 3. 2007 passed in Review Application No. 273173 of 2006.

( 3 ) THE ground of review is that the judgments and orders dated 7. 9. 2006 and 20,3. 2007 had been passed on the undertaking given by the Counsel for the petitioners before the Court without any instruction on the subject-matter" by his client, the petitioner.

( 4 ) SRI Khalil Ahamad, Counsel engaged subsequently for the petitioners submits that the undertaking was given by the earlier Counsel for the petitioners under the impression that the petitioners would not be having any hardship in vacating the disputed shop and is not willing to contest the writ petition. He has placed reliance upon paragraph 3 of the review application which is as under:-

"because as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in (1998) 6 SCC 507, no Court can foreclose a statutory or constitutional remedy only on the basis of un