Honble SHETHNA, J.–There is a delay of 91 days in filing review petition. The ground, which is assigned in an application under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act is that the impugned order dated 20.4.98 passed by me in writ petition No.3732/90 was earlier challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by way of a special appeal but the said appeal was dismissed on 17.7.98 with the passing observation that if the appellants are so advised, they would be at liberty to move a review petition. (2). The submission of Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the applicants in this review petition is that the matter was not squarely covered in favour of the original petitioner. However, learned counsel Shri Singhvi for the original petitioner submitted that the matter was squarely covered in favour of the original petitioner. (3). It may be stated that very submission was made by learned counsel Shri Singhvi for the original petitioner before me on 20.4.98 that the petition was squarely covered in favour of the petitioner in view of the judgment reported in 1992 (1) RLR 346, which fact was not disputed at that time either by the learned counsel Shri Singhal for the respondent R.S.E.B. or by the Dy. Government Advo- cate. Therefore, the said petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court delivered in 1992(1) RLR 346 (supra). Today, it was seriously contested by learned counsel Shri Singhal as well as Shri Vyas by submitting that the petition was not squarely covered by the judgment of this Court reported in 1992 (1) RLR 346 (supra). However, even today, learned counsel Shri Singhvi maintains that the peti- tion is covered in favour of the petitioner. (4). Relying upon the statement of the learned counsel for the parties made at the Bar, this Court passed the order. At that time the learned counsel, who earlier appeared for the respondents, should have been more careful when the statement was made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was squarely covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court report in 1992 (1) RLR 346 (supra). In my humble opinion, therefore, it would not be a ground for reviewing the order. In my humble opinion, therefore, it would not be a ground for reviewing the order. If the petition is really not squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court then the respondent, who want review of the order passed by this Court on 20.4.98, can certainly point out to the higher court that it was not covered, but there is no question of reviewing the same. (5). Thus, apart from the fact that this review petition suffers from the vice of delay of 91 days, there is no substance in main review petition also. Hence, application under Sec.5 is rejected and consequently the main review petition is also dismissed.