IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application with delay condonation application IN Writ Petition No. 4003 of 2001 (M/S) State of U.P. through the Collector Dehradun and two others. …… Petitioner. Versus Bibi Rani Duggal, W/O Sri J.S.Duggal, R/O 16 Municipal Road, Dehradun and two others. … Respondents. With Review Application with delay condonation application IN Writ Petition No. 4005 of 2001 (M/S) Smt. Bibi Rani Duggal W/O Sri U.J.S. Dayal, Resident of 16 Municipal Road, Dehradun through her General Attorney Sri J.N.Puri, R/O 16 Municipal Road, Dehradun …… Petitioner. Versus The Additional District Judge, Dehradun and four others. … Respondents. Smt. Bibi Rani Duggal … Applicant Sri Alok Singh, Senior advocate, with Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-Opposite Parties. Date June 25, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Review Application No. 348 of 2006 with Delay Condonation Application No.15525 of 2006 in WPMS No. 4003 of 2001) (Review Application No.349 of 2006 with Delay Condonation Application No. 15524of 2006 in WPMS No. 4005 of 2001) Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, with Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties-State. 2 The applicant, who is respondent no. 1 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4003 of 2001 and petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4005 of 2001, has preferred review application for review of the common judgment and order dated 7-4-2006 passed by this Court, whereby both the writ petitions were dismissed on merits after hearing learned counsel for both the parties. Both the review application in each case is accompanied with delay condonation application. Affidavit duly sworn in by Sri J.N.Puri, aged about 64 years, son of Late Shri Rai Bahadur Premnath has been filed. The only ground for condoning the delay, as mentioned in paragraph no. 7 of the affidavit accompanying the review application is that the deponent, who is the power of attorney of respondent no.1 is aged about 64 years and he is suffering from high diabetic and blood pressure, danger of vertico, extreme fatigue memory loss and black out, therefore, he could not file the present review application within the prescribed time. The O.P.-State has filed objection/affidavit against the review applications, wherein it has been specifically stated that the reasons shown in the affidavit are not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently argued that the authenticity of the medical certificate is doubtful because the impression of the seal is not at all legible and the ailments mentioned therein are not substantiated by any clinical report etc. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the delay condonation application and perused the record. There has been delay of more than seven months. The applicant has filed copies of medical certificates to show that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause to move the review 3 application in time. The delay in filing the review application in each case is condoned and applications for condonation of delay stand allowed. I have perused the order dated 7-4-2006. Undoubtedly, the judgment and order dated 7-4-2006 has been passed after hearing learned counsel for both the parties. By means of review application, the applicant wants to file some additional evidence in the matter, which is not permissible. No good ground is made out to review the order dated 7-4-2006. The review applications moved by the applicant lack merit and must fail. The review application, in each case, is accordingly dismissed. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5