1..... R.P. 153 of 2011 23.11.2011 Shri Pranay Verma, Counsel for the applicant. Shri Ashish Pathak, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vivek Agrawal, G.A. for respondent No.2. This application is filed seeking review of order dated 6.1.2009 in W.P. No.5262 of 2004 which was decided by an order which reads thus :- “None has put in appearance for the parties. Writ Petition has been filed as against interlocutory order of grant of injunction. Suit was filed in the year 1998. Suit must have been decided by now. In case suit is pending , it is ordered to be decided within 6 months. By way of interim arrangement, this court has stayed the operation of impugned order on 5.1.2005. That order has continued to operate. Till the suit is decided, that arrangement is ordered to be continued. Petition is disposed of.” Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that in fact the matter was of arbitration, arising out of an order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Narsinghpur in Civil Suit No. 35-A/04 by which the appellate Court allowed the appeal and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court. It is submitted that on wrong premises, the writ petition was decided finally while the matter ought to have been considered on merits by the writ Court. It is further submitted that this application is barred by limitation and the applicant has filed I.A.4885/11 seeking condonation of delay in filing this review petition. Though the prayer made in I.A.4885/11 is opposed by Shri Pathak, learned counsel appearing for 2..... R.P. 153 of 2011 23.11.2011 respondent No.1 but considering the peculiar facts of the case we find it appropriate to condone the delay in filing this review petition. Accordingly, I.A.4885/11 is allowed. Delay in filing this review petition is condoned. For the reasons stated in the Review Petition and considering the fact that the writ petition No.5262/04 was filed against the appellate order dated 30.11.2004 in the arbitration matter, by which the case was remanded back and the writ petition was disposed of on the premises that it was against some interlocutory order for grant of injunction, we find it appropriate to allow this review petition and recall the order dated 6.1.2009 passed in W.P. 5262/04. The office shall restore W.P.No.5262/04 to its number and to place it before the appropriate Bench for consideration. Considering the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE JUDGE vj