Order:-The petitioner prays for review of the judgment of this Court made in W.P. No. 230 of 1971 dated 28th August, 1973 2. The ground on which the petitioner seeks to get the order in question reviewed is set out here below: "The petitioner further submits that due to inadvertence, the Respondent in the Writ Petition was not able to produce the above mentioned unreported decision on the date of hearing of the writ petition. The Respondent did not urge anything against any procedural aspect of the enquiry. Hence if the decision had been placed before this Hon’ble Court, the Writ Petition should have been dismissed." Admittedly, the judgment of the Division Bench (Veeraswami, C.J., and Gokula-krishnan, J.,) in L. Sivanarayana Das v. Corporation of Madras represented by its Commissioner and another 3has not been brought to my notice. The petitioner pleaded "inadvertence’ ‘for his not producing the judgment of the Division Bench. I am afraid, under Order 46, rule 1 "in advertence" is not a ground. The judgment of the Division Bench was delivered as early as 15th July, 1969, and it is significant to notice that the petitioner was the first respondent in that case. The respondent in W.P. No. 230 of 1971 (the review petitioner) was possessed of the knowledge of the existence of the judgment of the Division Bench since 1969. The plea of "inadvertance" is not a ground within the meaning of Order 47, rule 1 for reviewing the order of this Court. Petition dismissed.