( 1 ) THESE applications have been filed seeking review of the order dated 31. 8. 2006 and for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. ( 2 ) THE substratum of the case of the respondent is that the respondents were not served and a Counsel appeared on their behalf without any authority and argued the matter resulting in the disposal of the petition on 31. 8. 2006. ( 3 ) THE respondents, in my considered view, are trying to act clever by half by deliberately wording the application in a manner as if to suggest that the Counsel did not have anything to do with the respondents. However, on a careful perusal of the application, it emerges that the Counsel was appearing for the respondents in different proceedings. It has to be noticed that a notice was issued in the present proceedings and the Trial Court proceedings have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners which record that the present case is listed on 31. 8. 2006. Thus obviously on the basis of an information received before the Trial Court, the counsel appeared in this Court. ( 4 ) IT is also relevant to note that the Counsel who appeared for the respondents has appeared in other collateral proceedings relating to the same property though in a different dispute between the parties. It may also be noticed that on 31. 8. 2006, counsel for the respondents appeared armed with judgments and the hearing went on for quite some time. The judgment was pronounced in Court after considering the judgments cited at Bar by both the learned Counsel for the parties. The present applications are a mischievous attempt on the part of the respondents to disown the result on a matter decided on merits when the Counsel for the respondents had advanced complete submissions in respect of the matter in issue. ( 5 ) THE applications are dismissed being without any merits with costs of Rs. 10,000/ -. Applications dismissed.