IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application No. 872 of 2010 In Second Appeal No. 392 of 2001 (Old No. 1131 of 2000) Bhupal Singh and others ...…………. Appellants / Review Applicants Versus Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and another ...…………. Respondents / opposite party Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, Advocate, present for the review applicants. Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate, present for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Review Application MCC No. 872 of 2010, for review / recall of order dated 19.08.2010, passed by this court, in Restoration Application No. 685 of 2010 and Delay Condonation Application No. 6952 of 2010. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 3) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff / respondent Arya Pratinidhi Sabha instituted Suit No. 112 of 1972, before Munsif, Nainital, in the year 1972, for eviction of the defendants / appellants from the land in suit. Said suit was contested by the defendants, and decreed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 30th of May 1998. Aggrieved by said decree, the defendants field Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1998, before the District Judge, Nainital, and said appeal, after hearing the parties, was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14.07.2000. Thereafter, this second appeal was filed before the Allahabad High Court, which was received by this court under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, for its disposal. The second appeal was earlier dismissed for non- prosecution on 15.07.2005, but restored vide order dated 09.09.2005, after delay condonation application and restoration application moved by defendants / appellants were allowed. Again after restoration, the defendants / appellants sought adjournments, and after about four years, the second appeal was once again dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.09.2009. Once again, restoration application along with delay condonation application No. 1001 of 2010 was moved on behalf of the defendants / appellants, which was dismissed by this court on 26.02.2010, after hearing the parties. Thereafter, another restoration application by legal representatives of another appellant was filed which was dismissed by this court, after hearing the 3 parties, vide order dated 19.08.2010. Hence, the review application along with four applications, including the application for impleadment. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this court does not find any error apparent on the face of record, which requires review or recall of order dated 19.08.2010. Therefore, the Review Application No. 872 of 2010 is rejected. (CLMA No. 8618 of 2010, CLMA No. 8619 of 2010, CLMA No. 8620 of 2010 and CLMA No. 8621 of 2010, filed with the review application, also stand dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [[ Dt. October 21, 2010. H. Negi 4