MC 1151/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Khorgeswar Rajbonshi, learned counsel for the review petitione rs. The petitioners, by present petition, are praying for condonation of del ay of 23 days in filing the review petition seeking review of the order passed i n CRP No. 137/2009 whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Article 227 o f the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.2.2009 passed in Titl e Suit No. 63/2008, allowing amendment of the pleadings in the plaint has been d ismissed. The grounds taken in the review petition are as follows: - (i) That though Ms Kritanjali Kalita, learned counsel assisting Mr. SP R oy, learned Advocate made a submission on 18.12.2010, when the revision petition was taken up for consideration, that the respondent No. 2 has expired for which application for substitution is required to be filed the same was not considere d. (ii) In the order dated 8.12.2010 there is no indication as to whether t he learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard or not. (iii) The contention of the review petitioner that the amendment as gran ted would change the nature and character of the suit was not considered. (iv) There is no whisper in the order dated 8.12.2010 regarding the obje ction filed by the review petitioner against the petition seeking amendment of t he pleadings. The grounds, as noticed above, are not the grounds for review and no order passe d can be reviewed on such grounds. That apart it is evident from the order dated 8.12.2010 that no submission was made relating to the death of the respondent N o. 2 and even Ms Kritanjali Kalita, learned counsel stated to have made such sub mission has not bothered to appear before this Court today. That apart there is no supporting affidavit from the said learned counsel. It also appears that the second ground as taken in the review petition, was taken without even bothering to read the order dated 8.12.2010 wherefrom it appears that the learned counsel for both the parties were heard. In dealing with an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a detailed order is not required to be passed. The Court while passing the said order has noticed that the amendment as sought for was necessary for decid ing the suit effectively and completely and the Court having found that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order requiring interference under Article 22 7 has dismissed the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitutio n. That being the position, I am not inclined even to issue notice on the p rayer for condonation of delay. The application seeking condonation of delay as well as the review petit ion is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited by the petitioner befor e the Registry of this Court for unnecessary wastage of Court’s time. The cost s hall be deposited within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today.