The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a writ petition and the SLP against the said order have been dismissed, it is not open for the petitioner to file a review petition before the High Court against the order of the High Court.

Since both the petitions were decided by the common judgment a review petitions have been filed against the common judgment, hence, both the review petitions are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we are narrating the facts of WPMS No. 135 of 2006.

2. The review petition has been filed with the prayer to review the order dated 15.02.2014 passed by learned single Judge of this Court. The writ petitions arise out of consolidation proceedings and the petitioner, which is "The Sunni Central Board of Waqf'', had challenged the order dated 11.03.1985 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition was dismissed after hearing all the parties by a learned single Judge. The petitioner did not choose to file a review petition immediately but tried his luck before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (in short "SLP''). In the said SLP, the Hon'ble Apex Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents, dismissed the SLP vide order dated 06.09.2014 by passing following order:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties. No ground for interference is made out to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The special leave petition is dismissed."

3. Thereafter a review petition was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2014 by passing following order:

"We have perused the review petition and the connected papers.

We do not find any error in the order impugned, much less an apparent error on the face of the record, so as to call for its review.

The review petition is dismissed accordingly."

4. Having failed till the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner has now moved a belated review petition before this Court, which is delayed by 299 days. It is, however, accompanied by delay condonation application.

5. Purely in the interest of justice the delay in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the review petition and perused the record.

7. Preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Lok Pal Singh that the review petition is not maintainable before this Court, as the order dated 15.02.2014 of this Court already stands merged with the order dated 06.09.2014 passed in the SLP (referred above). He has also cited various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in order to strengthen his argument. He would argue that once a writ petition has been dismissed and a SLP against the said order has also been dismissed, it is not open for the petitioner to file review petition before this Court against the order of this Court (High Court). He would also argue that it would have been a different case had the petitioner filed a review petition immediately after dismissal of the writ petition though even during the pendency of the SLP, but since factually this is not the case, the review petition is not maintainable. In order to strengthen his argument he has relied upon following rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court:-

1. Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm And Another Vs. K. Santhakumaran And Others reported in (1998) 7 SCC 386.

2. K. Rajamouli Vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy reported in (2001) 5 SCC 37.

3. Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese And Iron Ores Limited And Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337.

8. The learned counsel for the review petitioner Mr. Barthwal on the other hand argues that a review petition is still maintainable and has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in (2011) 4 SCC 602.

9. Under the present facts, even the decision relied upon by the petitioner (for the maintainability of review petition), does not help him, as in the decision cited by the petitioner (Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another) it has been said