IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application with delay condonation application IN Writ Petition No. 4004 of 2001 (M/S) Rai Bahadur Ram Ratan Prem Nath, now known as Rai Bahadur Prem Nath and sons, through its Karta Sri J.N. Puri, S/O Late Sri Rai Bahadur Prem Nath, resident of 16, Municipal Road, Dehradun. …… Petitioner. Versus The Additional District Judge, Dehradun and four others. … Respondents. Rai Bahadur Ram Ratan Premnath … Applicant Sri Alok Singh, Senior advocate, with Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-Opposite Parties. Date June 25, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Review Application No. 347 of 2006 with Delay Condonation Application No.15526 of 2006) Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, with Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties-State. The applicant, who is petitioner in the writ petition, has filed review application for review of the judgment and order dated 7-4-2006 passed by this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner, against the order of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court disallowing the his claim for enhancement of rent, was dismissed on merits after hearing learned counsel for both the parties. The review application is accompanied with delay condonation application. 2 Affidavit duly sworn in by Sri J.N.Puri, aged about 64 years, son of Late Shri Rai Bahadur Premnath has been filed. The only ground for condoning the delay, as mentioned in paragraph no. 7 of the affidavit accompanying the review application is that the deponent, who is the power of attorney of respondent no.1 is aged about 64 years and he is suffering from high diabetic and blood pressure, danger of vertico, extreme fatigue memory loss and black out, therefore, he could not file the present review application within the prescribed time. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, while opposing the review application, has vehemently argued that the authenticity of the medical certificate is doubtful because the impression of the seal is not at all legible and the ailments mentioned therein are not substantiated by any clinical report etc. Even on merits, it was submitted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the applicant wants to reopen the entire matter and wants to bring on record the alleged evidence obtained subsequent to the order passed on 7-4-2006, which is not at all permissible. The order dated 7-4-2006 has been passed on merits after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties. Hence the review application is liable to be rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the delay condonation application and perused the record. There has been delay of more than seven months. The applicant has filed copies of medical certificates to show that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause to move the review application in time. The delay in filing the review application is condoned and application for condonation of delay stands allowed. 3 I have perused the order dated 7-4-2006. Undoubtedly, the judgment and order dated 7-4-2006 has been passed after hearing learned counsel for both the parties. By means of review application, the applicant wants to file some additional evidence in the matter, which is not permissible. No good ground is made out to review the order dated 7-4-2006. The review application lacks merit and must fail. The review application is accordingly dismissed. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5