Full Judgment
2. There is a delay of almost two months in filing the review application and the applicant has not filed any application seeking condonation of the delay. The counsel for the applicant was present in Court on 22.6.2006 when the appeal was dismissed on merits. It is, therefore, necessary for the applicant to explain the delay. Be that as it may, even if we were to ignore the delay, we find no ground to review our order. The learned counsel for the applicant states that she has no instructions to argue the application and that she has been instructed by Mr. Kulkarni, Advocate only to make a request for an adjournment. It is surprising that on 22.6.2006 an adjournment was sought on the ground that the appellant had engaged Mr. N. Devdas, Advocate from Bangalore and he was not available on that day and we declined the request. Now the request is being made on behalf of Mr.
Kulkarni. No cogent reason has been furnished for seeking an adjournment and we have, therefore, declined the same. We have perused the review petition and find that no ground has been made out in terms of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the review of our order. On a reading of the review petition we are left with an impression that the applicant in the garb of this review petition wants to argue the appeal afresh which is not permissible. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the application which we hereby do.