of the Writ Appeal) and accordingly, it was dismissed as not pressed. But, when the Writ Appeal came up for consideration before the Division Bench on 25.06.09, the disposal of the writ petition was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges and the writ appeal was disposed of, reducing the burden from 50% to 30%, without entering into the merits of the case, leaving the merits to be considered in the writ petition wrongly stated as pending. Dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed on 22.06.99 was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. Thereafter, that the party preferred MJC 678/11, seeking to restore the writ petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn, as per order dated 16.1.2012, with liberty to the petitioner to file other appropriate proceedings. It is thereafter that the present review petition has been filed, as if the mistake is on the part of somebody else. The petitioner has not stated anywhere in the proceedings that, it was due to the mistake on the part of the lawyer, that the writ petition came to be dismissed as not pressed, on that day. This Court finds “no error apparent on the face of records” to invoke the power of review. The review
