10 Since a submission was sought to be advanced on behalf of the Applicant/Review Petitioner that a fraud has been committed on this Court resulting in this Court passing the order dated 29/08/2011 of which review is sought, we deemed it appropriate to consider the said submission. The fraud alleged is on the basis that the plans in question do not disclose parking area described as Bay-10 on the third level and that the fact of the approved plan showing a total 24 parkings only i.e. 8 on each level i.e. from 1st to 3rd floor was suppressed from this Court. It is required to be noted that in so far as the said contention of fraud being practiced on this Court is concerned, the said contention was also sought to be raised by the Applicant/Review Petitioner before the Apex Court as can be seen from the averments made in the affidavit in rejoinder especially in paragraph 6, 7.18, 7.19, 7.20 filed in the Special Leave Petition which is now part of the compilation filed by the Applicant/Review Petitioner in the above Review Petition. That apart there is material on record to indicate that the Applicant/Review Petitioner was put in possession and was in occupation of the said parking area which fact is also accepted by the Applicant/Review Petitioner in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. The said material indicates that when the Applicant/Review Petitioner sought to enclose the said parking area, that an objection was taken by the Society on the ground that the parking area was being misused, Hence the aforesaid material discloses that the Applicant/Review Petitioner was put in possession and was in use of the said parking area. There appears to be
