IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application No. 338 of 2009 With Delay Condonation Application No.3800 of 2009 IN Writ Petition (M/S) No. 5051 of 2001 (Old No. 6464 of 1988) Jogendra Singh S/O Sri Paras Ram and others. ... Petitioners. Versus The State of U.P. through the Collector, Dehradun and others. ... Respondents. 1. Jogendra Singh S/O Sri Paras Ram and 2. Jaggu S/O Sri Paras Ram ...Applicants. Sri A.U.Siddiqui, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents-O.Ps. Date June 02, 2009. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri A.U. Siddiqui, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners on delay condonation application filed along with the review application No. 338 of 2009. This Court has decided two writ petitions, namely, W.P.M.S. No. 5050 of 2001 Inder S/O Sri Thakur Vs. The State of U.P. and others and W.P.M.S. No. 5051 of 2001 Jogendra Singh and others Vs. The State of U.P. and others by a common judgment and order dated 22-8-2006, whereby both the writ petitions were dismissed on merits. It may be noted that the judgment and order dated 22-8-2006 was passed in presence of the learned counsel for both the parties. The review application (No. 338 of 2009) has been moved for review of the order dated 22-8-2006. Along with the review application, an application for condonation of delay (No. 3800 of 2009) has been moved for condonation of delay. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. The office report reveals that there is delay of 962 days in moving the review application. From a bare perusal of the contents of the affidavit, it appears that the applicant-deponent has made some imaginary assertions in the affidavit for the purpose of this case. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on 22-8-2006, Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate, had represented the petitioners in both the writ petitioners and all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have been dealt with in the body of the judgment. The applicants have asserted that in April 2009 the respondent authorities started to evict the petitioners from the land in dispute, but the applicants never tried to obtain certified copy of the order impugned immediately in the month of April 2009. The folio attached to the copy of the judgment shows that application for copy was made on 8-5-2009. Moreover, there is no assertion in the affidavit to the effect that no certified copy of the order had been applied for or issued to the learned counsel for the applicants between 22-8-2006 and 8-5-2009. The veracity of the contents of affidavit does not inspire confidence. Having considered the assertions made in the affidavit accompanying delay condonation application, I find that delay of 962 days has not been satisfactorily explained at all with all fairness and clean hands, therefore, I find no reason to condone the delay in moving the review application. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is rejected. Consequently, the review application (No. 338 of 2009) stands dismissed as barred by time. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP