IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.248 of 2009 Smt. Sunita Devi, wife of Sri Ajay Kumar, resident of Bhagwan Bazar, Thana Road, Chapra P.O. Chapra, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District Saran (Chapra)…………………………………Plaintiff/Opp. Party Ist Set/Petitioner Versus 1. Vidit Chandra Prasad 2. Anjan Prasad, both sons of Late Hardeo Prasad, Both residents of Village Sisai, P.O. & P.S. Baniyapur, District Saran at present resident of 1010 – B (Block), Kumhar Para Sonari, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum…………………………………………...Intervenor Defendants/ Petitioners /Opposite Party Ist Set. 3. Rameshwar Prasad, Advocate, Income Tax and Sales Tax Chapra, S/o Sri Kedar Nath Prasad, resident of Village Dayalpur P.S. Daudpur, District Saran at present residing at Mohalla Bhagwan Bazar, Thana Road, P.O. Chapra & P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District Saran (Chapra)…………………..Defendant No.1/Opposite Party 2nd Set/Opposite Party 2nd set/Opposite Party 5 03.11.2010 I.A. No.6068 of 2009 This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the review application. Though a reply to the I.A. has been filed by the opposite parties in which they have challenged reasons stated by the petitioner in the limitation petition for delay in filing the review application and have relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mithilesh Yadav Versus The State of Bihar & others reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 1015 and a judgment of this 2 Court in the case of Nagendra Kumar & another Versus Md. Murtaza reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 36, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court considers it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the review application. Therefore, the interlocutory application is allowed and delay in filing the review application is condoned. So far as merit of the review application is concerned, learned counsel for the opposite parties fairly admits that since the revision application was withdrawn, therefore, this Court had not passed any positive order issuing any direction. The observation was not meant to be treated as direction to the learned court below and it was mere observation to permit the petitioners-opposite parties herein to take steps as they may deem fit and proper. In view of the fair stand of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, this review application is disposed of. It is made clear that no part of the order dated 24.04.2009 passed in Civil Revision No.655 of 2009 shall be treated by 3 the learned court below as direction of this Court so as to act in a particular manner on the petition of the opposite parties which the trial court has to consider and dispose of strictly in accordance with law. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)