IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1325 of 2005 Shri Balbir Singh S/O Sri Jhamman Singh. … Petitioner. Versus Commissioner Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun and two others. … Respondents. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the review-applicant (respondent no.3). Mr. S.K.Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party-petitioner. Date September 12, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Review Application No. 783 of 2010) (Delay Condonation Application No. 7724 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the review applicant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party-petitioner. This review application has been filed for review of the order dated 9-1-2009 passed by this Court, whereby the writ petition was allowed. The application of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing objection was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner Garhwal Division Dehradun to decide the objection of the petitioner on merits as mentioned in the order. Since there has been delay in filing the review application, the review applicant has also moved delay condonation application, which is supported by an affidavit. Grounds mentioned in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay in filing the review application. Delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned. This review application has been filed on the ground that the civil suit had already been instituted by the opposite party. This fact was also mentioned in the writ petition, which was disposed of by order dated 9-1-2009 that the suit was filed on wrong advice, therefore, objection under Section 285 I of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Rules 1952 (for short the Rules) was filed along with delay condonation application 2 before the Commissioner Garhwal Division. This Court after considering the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act directed the learned Commissioner to decide the objection of the opposite party-petitioner filed under Rule 285-I of the Rules expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months vide order dated 9-1-2009. So far as the maintainability question raised by the review applicant is concerned, the review applicant may raise all the objections, which have been raised in the review application before the learned Commissioner. No good ground is made out for review of the order, therefore, the review application is rejected. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP