1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Recall Application No. 1176 of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2008 (M/S) M/s Himalaya Housing Construction Pvt. Ltd.……… Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation & others. ...……… Respondents Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. This is a wholly misconceived Application whereby the Applicant Arvind Kumar seeks the recalling of the order dated 30th September, 2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2008 (M/S). The said order was passed by this Court based upon a compromise between the writ petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 & 3 in the writ petition. In the present Application, applicant Arvind Kumar claims to have a right over the property in question, but upon perusal of the Application, the affidavit accompanying the same as well as the documents annexed with the Application, it clearly emerges that the Applicant has no connection whatsoever with the property in question. Apparently, the Applicant has set up a case only to frustrate and defeat the aforesaid Court order because undoubtedly, on the own showing of the Applicant, the Gift Deed in question was allegedly executed on 7th October, 2008, after the Court order 2 was passed on 30th September, 2008. Not only that, the Application and the affidavit wrongly mention that the property in question was sold by respondent No. 2 to one Pradeep Jain by registered Sale Deed dated 14th March, 2001. What was executed on 14th March, 2001 was not a Sale Deed at all. It was either an Agreement to Sell or a Lease Deed. Such a conveyance did not vest in Pradeep Jain any right to gift the property in question to the Applicant. All this apart, the very existence of the Gift Deed is in doubt because of the admitted fact that Pradeep Jain and the Applicant do not have nor do they claim to have any relationship with each other. The Application is dismissed. CLMA No. 6785 of 2008 & CLMA No. 6786 of 2008: The Applications are dismissed because of the order passed today separately in Recall Application No. 1176 of 2008. CLMA Nos. 7955/2008; 7956/2008; 7957/2008 & 7958/2008: Not pressed because of the order passed today separately in Recall Application No. 1176 of 2008. (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 16.03.2009 G