- (1.) HEARD Sri Arvind Vashist, counsel for the review applicants and Sri B. P. Nautiyal, counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) PRESENT application has been preferred by the respondent No. 2 review applicant for reviewing the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2007 passed by this Court, whereby the order dated 10-5- 2000 passed by the re spondents No. 1 Additional district Judge, Dehradun has been set aside and respondent No. 2 has been directed to be evicted from the premises in dispute. According to the review applicant, she had engaged Sri B. D. Kandpal, Advocate in her case, but he could not communicate the date fixed in the case, as such instructions could not be given to him. As a result of which, true facts could not be brought to the knowledge of the Court. Order sheet shows that the case was argued by the counsel for both the sides on 28-8-2006 and the judgment was delivered on 22-2-2007. During this period or before 28-8-2006 neither the counter- affidavit was filed nor any request for time for filing the same was made.
(3.) THE review applicant has alleged that the applicant is an infirm lady of 86 years and her son Vinesh Kumar is a handicapped per son. Her daughter Anjali Bhaseen is working in Canara Bank. Present review application has been filed on the following grounds : "4. That Sri B. D. Kandpal, Advocate did not inform her about listing of the matter and he was contacted time and again but the in formation conveyed to the applicant was that the record of the petition is not traceable. 5. That the applicant i$ aged and infirm lady. She is aged about 86 years and is ailing. Her son Vinesh Kumar Bhaseen is handi capped and a daughter Anjali Bhaseen is serv ing in Canara Bank. Due to her old age and illness the applicant was not in a position to come Nainital very often and therefore tele phonic continuity with Sri B. D. Kandpal ad vocate was maintained.;