1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.1/2007 Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division-I, Ratangarh and another. versus Rajendra Kumar Mehrotra and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.K.C.Samdaria, for the petitioners. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 22nd January, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. This review petition has been filed against the order dated 6.12.2005 dismissing the revision petition filed by the Assistant Engineer, PWD, Ratangarh. 2. By the impugned order dated 21.7.2004, the learned trial Court had rejected the application of A.En. PWD on the ground of limitation for execution of perpetual injunction granted by the decree dated 31.1.1994 for undertaking works like maintenance of roads etc. 2/3 Since the review petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/- to be paid by A.En. Sub Division-I, Ratangarh, Dist. Churu Mr. Vinod Kumar who filed the aforesaid revision petition, the Said A.En. Sub- Division-I, Ratangarh Mr. Vinod Kumar has again filed this review petition before this Court. 3. In the additional affidavit filed by the said person Mr. Vinod Kumar he has contended that he was A.En., P.W.D., Ratangarh only for the period from 1.7.2004 to 14.12.2005 and said appeal was filed on the advice of local Sr. counsel of Ratangarh, name of such counsel is however, no disclosed in the affidavit. The said affidavit also states in para 4 that the review petition has been filed at my instance because cost of Rs.1000/- has been imposed on me personally. 4. This Court is of strong opinion that this is clearly abuse of process of this Court by said person Mr. Vinod Kumar, A.En. P.W.D. who has filed the said review petition against the order dtd.6.12.2005 dismissing the revision petition with strong observations. Repetitively filing such petition one after another in the Court clearly shows bent of mind of the person concerned who instead of taking responsibility of compliance of Court's order, somehow seek to refuse to do the same on one pretext or the other. The whole tenor of review petition 3/3 as well as additional affidavit filed by said person indicates that he is trying nothing but to pass on the buck from one to another. This stand of the said person Mr. Vinod Kumar deserves to be strongly deprecated. Instead of discharging their public duty for which injunction was given by trial Court, finding ways and means to avoid that, is clearly an abuse of process of the Court. 5. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed with further cost of Rs.1,000/- on the said person Mr. Vinod Kumar, A.En. PWD, Ratangarh. Thus, total cost of Rs.2,000/-, one imposed by order under review dated 6.12.2005 and one by this order shall be recovered from said deponent Mr. Vinod Kumar, personally. 6. With these observations, this review petition is dismissed. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.1 Ss/-