a3 wGH cgURT OF wHATma MW m W g DWR3§ON a§NGM Kiwam : HQN’QLE $HR! WKJEEV (EUPTA (LJ. 8k HQN’BLE $HR£ SUML KUEWkR $£NMA, J. REWEW PETWmN W3. (M of 2mm $WPLIwKNT: V.K. Wainekar, We DAM. Wamekar, aged about 53 yeara Ex Cashigr, R/o Diprapara Dayamand} District Bilaspur (6.6.) (Petitioner) VERSU?» NQN APPMCANT$ i. Biiempur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bamk, thmugh the President Heaa’ Offica, Vyapar Vihar, Biiaspur ((3.6) 2. The Generai Manager, Biiaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office, Vyapar Viharj Biiéspur (6.6.) (Respondents) REWEW PETiTmN ARI$iN§3 OUT OF THE @RmER {ZiIiKTEiZi 2@.%.2%3 PA$SEE B‘i’ TWS HON‘RLE CQURT iN W‘P. NmEQWMEQW Present: $hri Rakesh 9andey, ieamed coumei f0r the peiiiioner. ORDER (215‘ January, WW) The folioWing arder of the Court wag pa'saeci by Rageev Gupta, 6.J.: Sim Rakesm Pandey, learned csun$ei far thee petitioner i3 heard on the review petition. 2) The oeii’iion fiied by the petitioner V.K. Wainekar seeking review of the oreer dated 29*“ September, 2003, passed in WP. No.2%‘4/2003 is reported to be hopeieesiy time-barred by ae nw as i888 daye (more than tive years). m : ¢&\ i)x 3) Tm petitioner is waking review of the order dated 29‘“ September, 2003, pagsed in WP‘ No.2964/2003 whereby me petitianew writ petition wa3 dismissged at the admission 5tage itsaeif. The Letters; Patent Appeal (LhPA. N034/20i33) fiied by the £ petitioner against the diamioaai of hiss, writ petition, was dimniswd vide order dated 29.04.2005. The Special Leave Petitions fiiead by the petiiioner before the Apex Court aioo camo to be dismioseci vide order dated 09.09.2005; pasoed in S.L.P. (C) Noe-3‘ 19166/2005 and 1w 67/2005. The mview netitimm filed by the petitioner before the Apex Court seeking review of the order diemieeing hie $peciei Leave Petitione eieo came to be tiiemiesect vide order dated 17.01.2006, paeeed in Review Petition (C) N082032/2005 and 2033/2065. 4) On due consideration of the eubmissione of learned couneei for the petitioner and the grounde taken by the petitioner in the review petition, we do not find any ground warranting review ot the order dated 29.09.2(303, paeeeci in WrP.No.2§64/2003. 5} The review petition, theretere, is iiabie to be dismissed and ie hereby diemieeed on merite notwithetanding that it is hopeieeety time—barred by ae many as 1888 days (more than five yeere)‘ Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/— Chief Justice eubbu