JUDGMENT 1. - Instant application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in March 1995 for reconsidering and recalling the judgment dated Feb. 26, 1991 (rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 288/89) on the ground that the said judgment was creating undue hardship. 2. Admittedly the judgment dated Feb. 26, 1991 was never called in question by filing special appeal before the Division Bench. The directions issued in the said judgment had already been complied with by the applicant respondents. 3. It is well settled that the High Court can exercise powers of review to prevent miscarriage of justice and to correct grave and palpable errors but there are limits to the exercise of such power. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others ( AIR 1979 SC 1047 ) defined the powers of review thus: (Para 3) "It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court." 4. Coming to the facts narrated in the instant application it may be seen that neither the reasons have been assigned as to why the special appeal against the impugned judgment was not filed nor the delay of four years in presenting the review application has been explained. Coming to the facts narrated in the instant application it may be seen that neither the reasons have been assigned as to why the special appeal against the impugned judgment was not filed nor the delay of four years in presenting the review application has been explained. Four years delay in filing the review application can not be condoned without any proper explanation of delay. 5. Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and another (AIR 1975 Allahabad 101) propounded that an application inviting the High Court under Article 226 to review its decision when it is filed after a long lapse of time without any proper explanation for the delay, the High Court would be justified in rejecting the application on that ground alone as that would be sound exercise of discretion. 6. After having reflected over the rival submissions and on a careful scrutiny of material on record I find that the impugned judgment has attained finality and implemented long back. It does not call for any interference after a period of four years. As the review application has been filed after a long lapse of time without any proper explanation for the delay it deserves to be rejected only on the ground of delay. 7. Resultantly, the review application stands dismissed with costs.Review Petition Dismissed. *******