ORDER : We had heard a batch of writ applications and disposed them of with certain directions by our JUDGMENT : and ORDER :dated 20.9.1983. Later on 10.10.83 the petitioners filed a fresh application purporting to be under Articles 225 and 226 of the Constitution for an ORDER :in the nature of review of the JUDGMENT : "and" to correct the patent and palpable error in the JUDGMENT :. 2. On the objection taken by the Stamp Reporter the application was converted into one of Civil Review and was listed for admission accordingly. 3. Mr. B.C. Ghose, who appeared in support of the application, contended that reliance was wrongly placed by us on the decision in C.W.J.C. No. 1545 of 1977 (Satyabadi Mishra & another v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 2370 of 1977 (Shamsher Singh Rekhi v. The State of Bihar & others) was disposed of by a common JUDGMENT : dated 6.8.1982, the frets of which had no application to the instant cases. 4. To a Court question as to how that was a matter for review, Mr. Ghose submitted that he never intended to file the present application as review application but on account of the peremptory ORDER :passed by the Bench in view of the office it was so converted. 5. He further submitted that if all the liefs are not granted to it writ petitioner or a mistake is committed in grant of the relief, then he was entitled to file an independent writ application for the second time. He placed reliance upon the case of Shivdeo Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1909). We nave examined that case. There the second writ application was filed by a third person who was not a party to the earlier proceeding of course, nobody can dispute the right of the third party who apparently is not precluded by an earlier decision rendered by the court from filing an independent application in his own right; but Mr. Ghose could not cite any decision where the same litigant having failed to succeed fully and get the desired reliefs according to his choice, could file an independent writ application for redressal of his left over grievances. 6. Ghose could not cite any decision where the same litigant having failed to succeed fully and get the desired reliefs according to his choice, could file an independent writ application for redressal of his left over grievances. 6. The argument that the decision of this Court which was referred to in our JUDGMENT : was of a different nature (though not), in our opinion cannot be examined inasmuch as even assuming for the sake of argument that any mistake or error had been committed by a Bench of this Court, then the remedy of the petitioner was to take the matter to the higher court and not to file a fresh writ application on the same cause of action. 7. The application, therefore, has got no substance and it is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.