` SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No.2326 of 2025 Asha Makker and others …………Petitioners Vs. Sate of Uttarakhand and another ……….Respondents Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Vishesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T.S. Bindra, learned counsel, through video conferencing, and Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned B.H. for the State/respondent no.1. Delay Condonation Application (IA No.3 of 2026) 3. A delay condonation application has been filed by the respondent-State. 4. There is a delay of 75 days in filing the recall application. 5. Since there is no opposition from the side of the counsel for the petitioner to the said delay condonation application. 6. Accordingly delay condonation application is allowed on the basis that the delay has been properly explained by learned counsel for the respondent-State. Recall/Review Application (MCC No.4 of 2026) 7. By means of the present recall/review application the respondent-State wants to recall the order dated 11.11.2025 whereby the writ petition was allowed and order dated 12.03.2025, passed by learned Executing Court i.e., learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun, in Misc. Case No.106 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Raghunath Dass, as well as 05.05.2025, passed by learned Revisional Court i.e., learned 2 District Judge, Dehradun, in Civil Revision No.48 of 2025, Smt. Asha Makker and others. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, were set aside. 8. It was clarified in the judgment that observation made by the Court is only for the purpose of deciding the impugned orders dated 12.03.2025 and 05.05.2025. 9. By means of the present recall/review application the State wants a liberty to be given to the State to file a separate suit. 10. This liberty sought by the State is not required to be made specific by the order passed by this Court. 11. By the impugned order, the orders dated 12.03.2025 and 05.05.2025 were set aside and this Court has not expressed any opinion about the rights of the State. Hence no interference is required by this Court by recalling or reviewing the judgment and order dated 11.11.2025. 12. Accordingly review/recall application is hereby rejected. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.04.2026 SK