1. By way of this application, the petitioner has prayed for review the order dated 21st February, 2005, passed by this Court in Appeal from Order No. 255 of 1994, by which this Court has disposed of the Appeal From Order with certain directions. However, subsequently it was pointed out that this was an ex-parte order.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the present applicants had filed Summary Suit No. 3257 of 1983 in the Court of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, against the present respondent. The said Suit was disposed of by passing ex-parte judgement and order. In the said suit the applicants had filed Exh. 12 for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in summary Suit No.3257 of 1983. The said application was also rejected.
2.1. Being aggrieved by the said decision dated 24.10.1996, the applicants filed Civil Revision Application No.139 of 1998 before this Court. The said Civil Revision Application was disposed of by this Court with a direction to convert the same into Appeal from Order, since, the Civil Revision Application was not maintainable and accordingly, it was renumber as Appeal from Order No.255 of 1994. This Court vide order dated 21.2.2005 disposed of the said Appeal. Hence, this petition.
3. I have heard learned advocate appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondents pointed out that this application is an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the order impugned was passed in the year 2005 and subsequently the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing S.C.A. No. 11104 of 2008, which came to be dismissed with cost vide order dated 03.02.2009. Against the said order, the present petitioner filed Latest Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2009. Having lost in writ proceedings the petitioners have come before this Court for review.
4. It appears from the record after passing of the order i.e. dated 21.2.2005 several litigations have been filed by the petitioners even before this Court and therefore, the contention raised by learned advocate for respondents is required to be accepted that the filing of this Review application is nothing but, abuse of process of law. Therefore, only on the ground that the action of the applicant is an abuse of process of law, this application is required to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top