Honble PANWAR, J.–By these review petition u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure code, 1908 the applicant-petitioner seeks review of common order dated 13.10.2003 passed in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1712, 1718, 1387, 1554, 1236, 966 and 1556 of 2002. (2). These review petitions are barred by limitation of 386 days. An application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation act has been filed. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. (4). In all the review applications, in para 2 of the application u/S.5 of the Limitation Act, it has been stated by the petitioner as under:- ``2. That it is humbly submitted that petitioner was informed by his counsel who appeared in the writ petition, that his writ petition has been decided by this Honble court on 13.10.2003. The petitioner remained under impression that his writ petition is still pending consideration. (5). However, in Para of the application, the petitioner stated that in the end of second week of August, 2004 petitioner from his own sources came to know that writ petition was heard and decided by this Court on 13.10.2003. (6). This appears to be a contradictory statement. Once, the petitioner was informed by his counsel that writ petition has been decided, thereafter, the petitioner was not to wait for his own sources. In the circumstances, the petitioner failed to explain the inordinate delay on 386 days in filing the review petition much less to show sufficient cause which prevented the petitioner to file review petition within the period of limitation. (7). Even on merits, I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the review petition have no force even on merits. (8). The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are, therefore, dismissed. The review petitions also stand dismissed.