Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner on July 31, 2003 this Court observed as under: “After having heard the rival submissions and on scanning the material on record, I do not find any illegality in the demand notices. Even after taking the possession of the property the RFC can proceed to recover the principle amount and the interest due against the petitioners in accordance with the agreement and law.” 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated July 31, 2003, intra Court appeal was preferred by the petitioners. An argument was raised on behalf of the petitioners before the Division Bench that since the debt was time barred, the recovery of loan could not have been effected. The Division Bench after considering the submission indicated that since the argument in regard to limitation was not raised before the Single Bench the proper course for the petitioners was to file review petition before the Single Bench. That is how the instant review petition has been preferred. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 4. Admittedly on July 31, 2003 when the matter was heard and disposed of by me, the petitioners were represented by Counsel Smt. Aradhna Sharma. None of the petitioners were present in the Court on the said date. Therefore, I directed the petitioners to file affidavit to Smt. Aradhna Sharma to establish that she had raised argument in regard to limitation before me. Despite many opportunities affidavit could not be filed. Mr. R.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioners stated in the Court that Smt. Aradhna Sharma was not ready to file the affidavit. 5. Having carefully weighed the order dated July 31, 2003, I notice that the argument in regard to limitation was not raised before me, I fail to understand that when the petitioners were not present before the Single Bench on July 31, 2003 then as to how and under what circumstances it was canvassed before the Division Bench by another Counsel, who had no occasion to appear before the Single Bench, that the Single Judge did not consider the argument raised in regard to limitation. 6. 6. Power of review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction, can be exercised by the High Court to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it in respect of an order under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the Court should be cautious to exercise such powers at the behest of unscrupulous litigant. A point, which was earlier waived by one Counsel, can not be permitted to be reagitated by another Counsel. 7. Mr. R.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioners made attempt to canvass the matter on merit and placed reliance on State of Kerala vs.V.R. Kalliyanikutty, AIR 1999 SC 1305 but once the argument in regard to limitation was waived by earlier Counsel I am not inclined to reopen it. 8. For these reasons the review petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed without any order as to costs.