JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a review petition for restoration of review petition No. 398 of 1970-71 in Second Appeal No. 120(z) of 1967-68. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 3. The petitioner was a defendant in a suit for partition under Section 176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The first appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Thereafter the petitioner filed a second appeal which was dismissed by a learned Member of this Court on June 4, 1971. A review petition against the order was filed on July 27, 1971. Sri B.K. Misra, Member, since transferred, dismissed the review petition as time barred on December 14, 1971 holding that no explanation had been furnished for the delay in filing the review petition and that even an application seeking condonation of the delay had not been moved. The present review petition has peen moved on February 25, 1976. 4. The present review petition is grossly time-barred. The petitioner has taken the plea that he came to know or the order dated December 14, 1971 only on February 25, 1976. This plea, however, is not borne out from the record. The record shows that Sri R.C. Srivastava, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner was duly informed of the dismissal of the earlier review petition on December 14, 1971 by the Registrar's letter No. 5534 dated January 6, 1972. Apart from that it stands to reason that the petitioner or his counsel should not have been remained asleep from December 1971 till February 1976 i.e., for four years and three months without bothering to know the progress of their review petition. Also, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any provision for a review of the order passed in a review petition. The law provides a party the right of first appeal and therefore a second appeal. Even after the decision of the second appeal, special remedies in the form of review petition or writ petitions are available. The law, however, does not envisage that the litigation should go on endlessly and even after the decision of the review petition there should be subsequent reviews which may go on ad infinitum. Even after the decision of the second appeal, special remedies in the form of review petition or writ petitions are available. The law, however, does not envisage that the litigation should go on endlessly and even after the decision of the review petition there should be subsequent reviews which may go on ad infinitum. Further, no error apparent on the face of the record has been shown in the order of the learned Member Sri B.A. Misra dated December 14, 1971. He had correctly observed that the review petition was filed on July 27, 1971, i.e., beyond time, that no explanation for the delay in filing the review petition had been furnished and that even an application seeking condonation of the delay had not been moved. Thus, in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, no review against the above order is maintainable. Even if it be assumed for a moment that the order of the learned Member Sri Prakash Krishen dated June 4, 1971 dismissing the second appeal, or that of Sri B.K. Misra dated December 14, 1971 dismissing review petition, are erroneous in law, this review petition cannot be entertain as no review lies on the ground of a wrong view of law. 5. I am not satisfied that the petitioner has been able to show any good cause for the abnormal delay in filling this review petition. The review petition is accordingly dismissed as time barred.