- (1.) The present civil review petition has been preferred for review of an order, passed by this Court, dated 17th April, 2009 in I.A. No. 1056 of 2009 with W.P.(S) No. 1087 of 2009.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while finally disposing of the writ petition as well as the aforesaid interlocutory application, it has been observed in paragraph no. 3, which are arguments canvassed by the respondents that a counter affidavit has been filed, but, in fact, there is no counter affidavit; and learned counsel for the petitioner has argued out again the case, in detail.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that in paragraph no. 3 what are stated, are nothing, but, the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents. But, in fact, the order starts from paragraph no. 4 onwards and there is no error in paragraph no. 4 onwards of the order dated 17th April, 2009 and therefore, so far as the counter affidavit is concerned, paragraph no. 3 may be corrected that there is no counter affidavit, filed by the respondents otherwise, the order, passed by this Court is absolutely true, correct and in consonance with the facts and law.;