Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J.

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 respondent 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The review applicant has alleged that the applicant is an infirm lady of 86 years and her son Vinesh Kumar is a handicapp