IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1551 of 2006 INDU DEVI Versus BRHAMDEO RAI @ BRAHAMDEO PRASAD ----------- 2. 15.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. When the petitioner’s application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by an order dated 19.1.2005 that was not to his satisfaction. He filed another application on 27.1.2006, this time by also referring to some judgment of the Apex Court. That again was rejected by a reasoned order dated 30.3.2006. Again the petitioner was not satisfied. He filed yet another application, this time seeking review/ modification in the order dated 30.3.2006 and the sole ground was that the judgment of the Supreme Court was not correctly appreciated. That prayer has been rejected by the impugned order by the court below holding that there was no scope for review in the order dated 30.3.2006 and that the judgment of the Apex Court was correctly considered by the court below in its order dated 30.3.2006. This Court had put a question to the counsel appearing for the 2 petitioner as to how the third application for review was maintainable for the same relief and what was the error apparent on the face of record, counsel for the petitioner only says that such prayer was made to meet the ends of justice. He is not in a position to show any error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 30.3.2006. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner is only interested in delaying the proceedings and filing a repeated application for the same relief. Such attitude of the petitioner needs to be deprecated and if the court below has passed an order rejecting such prayer that at least cannot be said to be vitiated by any jurisdictional error. In fact this civil revision application itself is wholly misconceived and is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/