IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Application No. 6817 / 06 Recall / Restoration App. 101 / 09 Delay Cond. App. No. 1399 / 09 In A.O. No. 1529 of 2001 Hari Bhajan Singh. ...…………. Appellant Versus Najar Singh and others ...…………. Respondents None present for the appellants. Mr. Narendra Bali and Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocates for applicant / respondent No. 2, in the Appeal. Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B. S. Verma , J. This is Delay Condonation Application No. 1399 of 2009, for condonation of delay in moving the Restoration Application No. 101 of 2009. Heard and perused the affidavit filed by Mitra Prakash (respondent No. 2 in appeal). The delay is sufficiently explained. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay is condoned. Also, heard on Restoration Application No. 101 of 2009. The absence of applicant on 04.07.2008, is sufficiently explained. Therefore, the order dated 04.07.2008, is recalled. Application No. 101 of 2009 stands disposed of. Also, heard on Correction Application No. 1853 of 2006, wherein it has been prayed that in the order dated 20.12.2005, the date may be corrected as 19.12.2005. Perusal of cause list of this Court dated 19.12.2005, reveals that a recall application which was dismissed by this Court on 06.06.2005, was indeed listed on the Board on said date, and the case was taken up and the recall application was rejected on the very day, but due to typographical mistake the date of order was transcribed as 20.12.2005. In the above circumstances, the Application No. 1853 of 2006 stands disposed of with the observation that the date of order should be read as 19.12.2005, instead of 20.12.2005. Certified copy of the order shall also be corrected accordingly. Also, heard on Application No. 6817 of 2006, moved on behalf of the applicant / respondent No. 2, for recall of order dated 06.06.2005, passed by this Court. The order dated 06.06.2005, passed by this Court, reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the parties made a joint statement that parties have settled their dispute outside the Court. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of in terms of said compromise / admission as contained in affidavit–dated 24.05.2005 filed by Respondent No. 1/1 without prejudice to the rights of other parties.” The above order clearly protects the right of the other parties, who are not party to the compromise, filed in the form of affidavit. As such, we do not find any error of law apparent on the face of record in the order dated 06.06.2005, on the basis of which it can be said that the same warrants recall. [ Therefore, the Application No. 6817 of 2006 is dismissed. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 04, 2009. H. Negi