- (1.) The delay of 3128 days in filing this review petition is not at all satisfactorily explained. The review petitioner has stated in his application seeking condonation of delay that he was suffering from brain tumour and was operated upon 13/09/1991. He himself has also stated that he remained under treatment thereafter upto 27/3/1992 and then he joined his official duties at Solan, Himachal Pradesh. If that is so, the time taken by him in filing the review petition after 27/03/1992 till October, 1999 is not at all satisfactorily explained. This review petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
(2.) However, even on merits, we have considered the review petition and the connected records. We find that there is no patent error demonstrated by the review petitioner which calls for our interference in the review proceedings. The courts below have concurrently held that the review petitioner's possession of the disputed premises was not proved on record. It is a pure finding of fact, which resulted in a decree of injunction against him. Consequently, his special leave petition was dismissed on merits. This review petition is, accordingly, dismissed both on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits.;