Honble SHETHNA, J.–By an order dated 13.5.1998 the writ petition no. 2169/90 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. Against the said order, the petitioner filed D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 644/98 before the Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed on 8.7.98 by the Division bench by speaking order. The certified copy of the same was received by the petitioner on 20.7.98, and, therefore, the petitioner has filed this review petition on 4.8.98. (2). Today, this matter is placed for orders for non-removal of defected. There are in all 8 defects. Main objection raised by the office is that this review petition is time barred by 53 days. Therefore, the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 28.8.98 to condone the delay on the ground that the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that he could challenge the order passed by this Court before the Division Bench in appeal. It appears that while dismissing the special appeal, the Honble Judges of the Division Bench observed that, " If the appellant has any grievance with regard to the aforesaid observations, he would be at liberty to move a review petition before the learned single Judge who passed the impugned order." It was only there after, this review petition was filed on 4.8.98.At that time no application for condonation of delay was filed and it was filed on 28.8.98 only after the office raised the objection that it was time barred by a period of 53 days. As per the recent pronouncement of the Apex C ourt, this Court has also to consider the merits of the case while considering the application for condonation of delay. Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this court made a glaring error apparent on the face of the record in para no.2 of the Judgment by observing that the award was already complied with by the petitioner, which is not true. He submitted that the petitioner had never complied with the award passed by the labour Court. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 13.5.1998 passed by this court be reviewed and re-called and the main writ petition be heard and decided afresh. He submitted that the petitioner had never complied with the award passed by the labour Court. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 13.5.1998 passed by this court be reviewed and re-called and the main writ petition be heard and decided afresh. I am afraid, this submission of Mr.Kapoor cannot be accepted for the semple reason that there is no error much less error apparent on the face of record which is committed by this Court. It is highly improper on the part of the learned counsel to pick up few words from the sentence. The order has to be read as a whole and it cannot be read in piecemeal. It may be Stated that the award passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the petitioner way back in 1990. It is also not a disputed fact that they failed to obtain any stay order against the award passed by the Labour Court from this Court. Under the circumstances, the petitioner had no option but to comply with the award. In fact, the order was pronounced in the open court in presence of the learned counsel. If it was pointed out to this court at the time of deciding the writ petition that the petitioner had not complied with the award passed by the Labour Court, then certainly this court would have saddled the petitioner with heavy cost for not complying with the award passed by the Labour Court for so many years after they failed to obtain any stay from this Court and this Court would have even initiated contempt proceedings against the petitioner for not complying with the award passed by the Labour Court. It is clear that this fact was deliberately not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of deciding main writ petition and the Court was rather given an impression that the award was complied, therefore it was observed in para 2, that the award has been complied with by the petitioner as they failed to obtain any stay order against the same from this Court. (4). (4). In view of the above discussion, I do not see any merit in the review petition, which is barred by period of 53 days, therefore, there is no need to issue any notice of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as no cause much less sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay of 53 days in filing the review petition. (5). In view of the above discussion, this review petition is dismissed as time barred because no cause much less sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay in filing the review petition late and also on the ground that it has no merit. (6). Before parting, I must State that by spending some amount the Court time can be wasted by the persons like the petitioner in this manner, firstly by filing special appeal before the Division Bench and then filing review petition after his appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. The Court cannot be taken for granted in this manner. I strongly dis-approve this practice of filing review petition under this guise. Accordingly, I order the petitioner to pay a special cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be deposited by him before the Registrar of this Court within three months from today, which shall be utilised for the purpose of legal aid. (7). With these observations and directions this review petition stands dismissed.