SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed by Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui seeking review of judgment dated 30.09.2010 in O.O.S No. 3 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Suit-3). The application has been filed much beyond the period of limitation. The Review Application is accompanied by three applications namely, delay condonation application; dispensation of filing of certified copy of judgment; and seeking time for filing affidavit in support of review application. These three applications accompanying review application are almost identical and simi­larly worded as the three applications accompanying review application No.1 of 2010 which we have decided by a detailed order of date. For the reasons stated in our order of date in review petition No.1 of 2010, the delay condonation appli­cation and application seeking dispensation of filing of certified copy of the judg­ment are allowed.
(2.) SO far as application dated 22.11.2010 seeking time to file affidavit in support of review application is concerned, on this aspect in para 5 of our order of date in Review Application No.1 of 2010, we have observed as under: "Now come third application whereby time for filing affidavit in support of review application has been sought. In para 2 thereof, applicant has re­quested for grant of a fortnight's time. This application is dated 18.11.2010. It was taken up by Court for the first time on 10.12.2010. Much longer time was allowed to applicant by adjourning the matter to 28th January 2011, i.e. time of more than a month and half was available to the appli­cant to file affidavit in support of review petition. The application seeking time for filing affidavit thus has already rendered infructuous. No affida­vit however has been filed. This itself is a sufficient reason to reject review application." The above observations squarely apply here also.
(3.) HOWEVER , we had permitted applicant to address Court on merits so as to find out whether there is any substance whatsoever in the review application. This Court adopted this procedure, though normally not, only to satisfy itself that no glaring or apparent error has crept in the judgment and there is no occasion for injustice to any of the parties. This approach, the Court has adopted, consid­ering peculiar and sensitive nature of the matter.;