JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. This review petition is directed against the order dated 31.3.09, passed in Second Appeal No.336/98, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners at admission stage. The learned Single Judge found that the defendants had continued in possession of the suit land as lessee after 1953. In the year 1953 Mainabai, who was widow, granted lease to the defendant had died . Thereafter, no steps were taken by the petitioners herein for possession of the land and after continuation of the possession of more than two years the respondents had initially acquired rights as occupancy tenant and, thereafter, bhumiswami rights. The aforesaid judgment is in accordance with the provisions as contained under Section 169 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 3. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there was dispute in between the heirs of Ms. Mainabai for the succession and after resolving the dispute proceedings were filed, but merely because there was some dispute between the heirs of Mainabai will not give any immunity to thy petitioners for initiating proceedings under Section 169 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. As the respondents had continued in possession even after coming into force the M.P. Land Revenue Code on 2.10.1959, after two years the respondents got rights of occupancy tenant and thereafter as bhumiswami. 4. In view of the aforesaid, we find no error apparent on the face of the record, in the impugned order. The review petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at admission stage itself. 5. It will be pertinent to mention here that there is delay in filing this review petition. We have considered the review petition on merits and dismissed the same, therefore, it is not necessary for us to consider I.A. No.1639/10, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, the same also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.