J.M. Srivastava, J. This is respondents' application for review of our judgment and order dated 19.7.91 in Civil Rule No.737 of 1990 [1991 (2) GLJ 152] whereby we had allowed the said petition with the direction to the respondents (the present applicants) to settle the petitioners' (opposite party herein) bill in accordance with the agreement within six weeks and allowed costs. 2. The ground for review is that the said petition (Civil Rule) was heard without the respondents having been able to file counter affidavit, even though the respondents parawise comments had been received in the office of the Senior Government Advocate for the respondents on 21.5.91,but by mistake were not attended, and the petition was heard on 13.6.91 and 14.6.91 when judgment was reserved and delivered on 19.7.91 with the result that the respondents version could not be projected and considered by the Court. Sri D.P. Chaliha, learned Government Advocate ha? submitted that this applicant (respondent) should not suffer due to mistake in the office of the Senior Government Advocate. 3. Shri P.K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the opposite party (petitioner) has submitted that there was no mistake or error apparent on record as may justify review, that this Court had issued notice returnable within 2 weeks on 30.4.90, thereafter the respondents had taken time and on 26.6.90 Rule was issued returnable within 2 weeks whereafter time was repeatedly given to file counter affidavit on 5.11.90 and on 4.12.90 and the matter was adjourned or passed over until hearing was fixed on 27.5.91 and later the same was heard on 13.6.91. Shri Bhattacharjee has submitted that the respondents were negligent and even the ground stated, itself is of neglect and no case for review is made out. 4. We have carefully considered the matter and think that there was lapse in the office of the Senior Government Advocate, where despite receipt of parawise comments the counter affidavit could not be presented before the petition was heard without respondents' version, with resultant miscarriage of justice. 4. We have carefully considered the matter and think that there was lapse in the office of the Senior Government Advocate, where despite receipt of parawise comments the counter affidavit could not be presented before the petition was heard without respondents' version, with resultant miscarriage of justice. While negligence in presentation of case ordinarily may not be considered sufficient ground for review, in the instant case the respondents had furnished materials for presentation of -their version, but the same could not be projected before the Court due to lapse in said office, with the result that the matter was decided without any consideration of the respondents version and it may well be said that there was miscarriage of justice. 5. In Shivadeo Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1990, it was held that review to prevent miscarriage of justice was permissible. 6. In the circumstances, therefore, to prevent miscarriage of justice, we are inclined to allow this petition and on review prayed for, set aside our judgment and order dated 19.7.91. The respondents shall file their affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks. The petitioner may file rejoinder thereafter within a week. The petition in Civil Rule No. 737 of 199J shall thereafter be heard on merit. Petition is allowed.