IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application No. 359 of 2010 In Special Appeal No. 47 of 2010 Narayan Singh & others. ..……… Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. ...………. Respondents. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Advocate for the applicants / appellants. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. During the course of hearing, while pressing the instant Review Application, learned counsel for the applicants has pressed three pleas. The first contention is, that this Court has erroneously arrived at the conclusion, that it does not have territorial jurisdiction. The second and the third contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants are based on the grounds raised in paragraphs 11 and 16 of the grounds of review. Paragraphs 11 and 16 of the grounds of review are being extracted hereunder: “11. Because while the recruitment process / proceedings were pending before the Excise Commissioner UP Allahabad the State of Uttarakhand came into existence on 9th November 2000 and accordingly in accordance with the instructions contained in section 91 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 the said proceedings were deemed to be transferred to Excise Commissioner Uttarakhand, who failed to take suitable action for employment of the concerned retrench employee. 16. Because finally the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the SLP on 4.1.2008 thereby setting aside the orders dated 4.10.2004 & 21.6.2004 passed by Division Bench as well as learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court and further directed that the appellants herein shall submit his reply in the writ petition and also reply to the stay application and the learned single judge shall passed fresh order on the stay application after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Neither the appellant has submitted any reply of the writ petition and stay application nor the single judge has passed any fresh order on the stay application after hearing the parties in accordance with law.” 2. Insofar as the first two grounds are concerned, we are satisfied, that the pleas raised by the applicants are beyond the purview of the 2 parameters laid down in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Insofar as the third plea is concerned, the main controversy having been decided on merits, the same does not arise at all. 3. In view of the above, we are satisfied, that there is no merit in the instant Review Application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 04.06.2010 04.06.2010 G