JUDGMENT : 1. - This review petition has been filed against the judgment and order-dated 20.10.1997 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition on the ground that resignation cannot be withdrawn after its being effective, placing reliance upon large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. The review has been filed on the ground that the Authority, which has accepted the resignation, has no such competence, therefore, the order of acceptance was nullity and could not have been enforced against the petitioner. This Court, vide order dated 9.9.2002, passed the following order : "Prime facie, I am of the opinion that the instant review petition is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. v. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr., AlR 1997 SC 1005 , wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that review petition cannot be permitted to be filed by counsel other than the counsel who had argued the matter." 3. Further, the petitioner was asked to furnish an affidavit of the counsel who had argued the matter stating that he had agitated and made submission on the issue regarding the competence of the Authority who had accepted the resignation. In compliance of the said order, no affidavit has been filed. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that even if the point is not argued by the Counsel but has been taken in the petition, review petition should be entertained in the interest of justice. However, he agrees with the order on merit that the resignation cannot be withdrawn after its being effective. 4. It is settled legal proposition that the Court is not permitted to deal with an issue which has not been agitated by the counsel for the simple reason that the issue may be decided in favour of one party and against the other. The party aggrieved did not have the opportunity to meet the issue, therefore, in law such a course is not permissible. (Vide New Delhi Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2847) . 5. Moreso, it is also settled legal proposition that scope of review is very limited and under the garb of review a party cannot be permitted to reopen the entire case.In Union of India & ors. (Vide New Delhi Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2847) . 5. Moreso, it is also settled legal proposition that scope of review is very limited and under the garb of review a party cannot be permitted to reopen the entire case.In Union of India & ors. v. N.V. Phaneendran, (1995) 6 SCC 45 , the Apex Court held that if a large number of contentions have been raised on merit but the Tribunal has dealt with only some of the issues, the Writ Court/Appellate Court may remand the case for reconsideration, provided it is satisfied that the left out submission had been specifically agitated/argued before the Authority/Tribunal and in case the controversy was limited to the particular point before the Tribunal, there can be no justification for remand/remit the matter. Same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 662 . 6. Thus, in view of the above I am of the considered opinion that a review petition is not maintainable on a issue which had been agitated at the time of passing the order impugned. In the instant case, Mr. Dave could not satisfy the court that the issue agitated on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the petition can be argued in the review petition and he can be permitted to re-open the case under the garb of the review. In the fact- situation, no indulgence is warranted. 7. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******