r jj -I ^: v.i T XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r, l^Tli<=b 37T^T 5ti^|cb ^f^a NNBW^ ww "5'Sf ^|<41d<4, ^•^<H<l(o, facrtKrl^ 3?T^T 'q^?^ / A7^c(^r/o£ ^l^^r^b^lch '^"^T" 'STI'^T ^RTTW^TT 17.04.2006 ' - Applicant appears in person. The appiicant had filed revi rejected by this Court on 21 .2.2005 The instant appiicatjon for n 198 days. He has aiso fi!ed an appi Act for coridonation of deiay in supported by his own affidayit. Heard on M.C.P. No.201/2( deiay. . The appiicant submits that al by this Court he was In factinte petition before the trial Court under restitytion of conjuga! rights, Hov reaching amicable settiement had the cost imposed by the tria! court compelled to fiie the instant app!ica| Taking into consideration the the appiicant was dismissed on assigned by the appiicant for not and also considering the facts and of the opinion that it is not a fit c( review. Accordingly, the application| CQnsequentIythe reviewapd CM^f<n41'1 'RT^T^Tf ^ fiT3t Tf^T^R ^3:rf^R3T1^T ^ipn petition No. 81/2004 which was ^view has been fiied with the de!ay of ^ation under section 5 6f the Limitation |Iing the review appiication which is / |06-an appiication for conddnation- of ^er the disniissa! of his revision petition t'ested Jri the disposa!\of the.origlnai |sectfon 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for |rever, the non applicant in piace of moved an appiication for recovery of ind under such circumstances he w^s ion for review. facttha't revision petition preferred by '1.2.2005 and iooking to the reasons ijng the review appiication within time ircumstances ofthecase, this Court is ise to condone the delay In fillng the M.C.P.No. 201/2006 is rejected. lication is also djsmlssee Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge ^ ..^ ^i^q-