IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review/Clarification Application No. 238/2011 Delay Condonation Application No. 2853/2011 Objection 4295/2011 Review Application No. 289/2011 Delay Condonation Application No. 4381/2011 Objection 4361/2011 In W.P.No. 654(M/S) of 2011 Smt. Rekha Aggarwal - Petitioner Vs. Pankaj Kumar - Respondent Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Bandna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate and Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for The respondent. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Bandna Singh, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Arvind Vashist and Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for respondent on delay condonation applications. The delay shown in filing review applications is satisfactory. Both the delay condonation applications are allowed. Also heard on Review/clarification application No. 238/2011, moved by petitioner and objection 4295/2011 filed by respondent. The review/clarification has been filed on the ground that in the later part of the order passed by this court some mistake has crept in. The petitioner sought the relief to summon the hand writing expert to rebut the expert report dated 30-4-2007 filed by the plaintiff. The court while allowing this application has directed that the petitioner may be allowed to summon only the handwriting expert to rebut his earlier report submitted in the court. The expert report dated 30.4.2007 was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, therefore, at page-3 of the order words “his earlier report submitted in the court” be deleted and in place of it words “the report submitted by the plaintiff in the court” be added. This correction may also be made in the in the operative portion of the order. Accordingly the review/clarification application moved by petitioner is partly allowed. 2 The review application No. 289/2011 also stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. Dated: 12-5-2011 (B.S. Verma, J.) ISB 3