Review petitions by different counsel untenable absent compelling circumstances, especially contradicting prior consent.

The petitioners assert that the judgment sought to be reviewed is in error because, they had not agreed to return 45 sovereigns of gold to the 1^st respondent, or to pay off the entire arrears of maintenance.

2. We notice that this petition for review has been filed through different counsel, and not through the one who had represented the petitioners in the appeal. It has been well settled, through several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that, unless there are compelling causes or circumstances, a review application by a different counsel is untenable and impermissible.

3. The reasoning of the Hon’ble Supreme Court attracts on all force in this case because, we had disposed of the matter on the express consent offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner; and we see no reason why we must exercise any jurisdiction in review on the basis of a contra- assertion to be made subsequently, and that too, through a different counsel.

4. We do not want to say anything further, except to record our displeasure in the conduct of the petitioner.

5. This review petition is consequently dismissed.

Though we would have been justified in imposing costs, we refrain from doing so, adverting to the fervent request of Sri.Johny K. George.