IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2162 of 2008 (M/S) Smt. Poonam. ……. Petitioner Versus Sachin Malhotra. ……. Respondent Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. After hearing the detailed arguments of Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I fell convinced that the impugned order dated 5th December, 2008 suffers from patent error apparent on the face of the order because, in this order, the learned court below has not taken notice of the application filed by the petitioner on 1st December, 2008 giving therein sufficient explanation for not filing the Written Statement earlier. The impugned order dated 5th December, 2008 is set aside. The Written Statement filed by the petitioner is permitted to be taken on record and the ex parte proceedings against the petitioner are set aside. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 16.12.2008 G