Honble JAIN, J.–The petitioners have filed this petition under O. 47, R. 1 CPC read with Sec. 151 CPC seeking review of the order dated 13.5.1996 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 145 of 1996. (2) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that this Court while dismissing the revision petition did not allow the application for amendment filed by the petitioners simply on the ground that that was a second amendment application on identical plea but as a matter of fact, that was not a second amend- ment application. The earlier application was under O. VI, R. 17 CPC and was neither identical nor substantially the same with the present one. Hence this Court rendered the above decision in the revision petition on the assumption of wrong facts. (4) The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is devoid of force. On page 4 of the impugned judgment, this Court observed as under : ``A perusal of the above order shows that the defendants raised the plea based on S. 69 of the Act for challenging the maintainability of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the above application by observing that the application was not maintainable and was filed with a view to delay the matter. By order dated July 11, 1995, the trial court decided the application filed by the petitioners under O. VI, R. 17 CPC. An amendment based on the same plea was sought to be allowed. The learned trial court after discussing the merits of the point involved dismissed the same. It is, thus, clear that on two occasions, the trial court happened to deal with the above plea as a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit or in the shape of the amendment and did not allow the petitioners to raise the same. Hence, the second application under O. VI, R. 17 CPC cannot be allowed. (5) From the perusal of the above observations made in the revision petition, it is clear that the impugned judgment contains the reasons and these reasons do not call for any review. Hence, the second application under O. VI, R. 17 CPC cannot be allowed. (5) From the perusal of the above observations made in the revision petition, it is clear that the impugned judgment contains the reasons and these reasons do not call for any review. (6) In this view of the matter, I find no force in this review petition and it is hereby dismissed with costs.