ORDER 1. This review petition seeks to challenge the order of this Court dated 5.5.2006. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was neither heard while issuing notice dated 19.4.2006 nor matter decided on merits before the order dated 5.5.2006 came into effect. Learned Counsel contends that she had approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition which was dismissed as withdrawn to seek appropriate remedies before this Court. It is pursuant thereto that this review petition has been moved. 2. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has succeeded before the Trial Court and the eviction petition was dismissed on the grounds that the son of the landlord did not have personal knowledge of sending of the notice and receipt thereof as also the quantum of rent. However, the Appellate Court has held that the witness has deposed as the witness having full knowledge as a General Power of Attorney and subsequently, in its own rights. The witness cannot be discarded merely because he was a General Power of Attorney. She further contends that the order of Appellate Tribunal ought to be set aside. 3. Having heard Counsel, it appears that this Court was not inclined to entertain this petition on 19.4.2006 when the Counsel for the petitioner sought one years time to vacate the premises. Since the time was too long, notice confined to this was issued. On the subsequent date, i.e., on 5.5.2006, Counsel chose not to seek time and also did not make any further arguments in the matter. In that view, C.M.(M) No. 674 of 2006 was dismissed. 4. I am told that the possession of the premises has already been taken over by the landlord and that before the possession was taken over, for over six years no rent was even sought to be deposited nor offered to the landlord. Today, to contend the order dated 5.5.2006 be set aside, is highly belated and also does not come under the purview under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. There is absolutely no error which needs to be corrected. 5. In view of the above, Review Petition No. 42 of 2007 is dismissed. Civil M.A. Nos. 1668/2007, 1669/2007 and 1670/2007 also stand dismissed. Review Petition dismissed.