JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Cmp(M) No. 1001 of 2019 After taking into consideration the averments made in application, reply and rejoinder thereto and also submissions made by learned counsel for parties, delay in filing the review petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Review Petition No. 86 of 2019 2. This petition has been filed for reviewing the judgment dated 15.3.2019 passed in main petition bearing number CMPMO No. 445 of 2018 titled as Sat Pal vs. Baba Dharam Shah on ground that petitioner was keenly interested to pursue the petition and he was pursuing the petition diligently, but unfortunately, he fell seriously ill and remained under treatment from PGI Chandigarh and thus he could not file rejoinder to reply filed by respondent and after recovery to some extent, he returned to Shimla and requested his counsel to file review petition so as to enable him to file rejoinder to reply filed by respondent in CMPMO. It is prayed in petition that taking a lenient view, impugned judgment dated 15.3.2019 be reviewed by permitting the petitioner to file rejoinder to reply filed by respondent as affording the opportunity to petitioner to file rejoinder would facilitate both the parties to get effective justice. 3. On perusal of record of main CMPMO, it is evident that reply filed by respondent was on record on 7th January, 2019 and on that day statement on behalf of petitioner was made that no rejoinder was intended to be filed. Thereafter, case was listed for consideration on 28.2.2019. Petitioner has filed the discharge slip of Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh which indicates that he was admitted in PGI on 2.2.2019 and was discharged on 20.2.2019. Thereafter, he remained under treatment in PGI as an OPD patient. 4. Statement on behalf of petitioner that no rejoinder was intended to be filed, was made on 7th January, 2019 on which date he was not admitted anywhere, rather he was admitted almost one month thereafter and therefore ailment of petitioner has no nexus with non-filing of rejoinder as it is not a case where right to file rejoinder was closed by the Court, but here, petitioner himself has chosen not to file rejoinder. It is also fact that the case was listed for consideration on 28.2.2019. However, arguments were finally heard on 8th March, 2019 and judgment was pronounced on 15th March, 2019. It is also fact that the case was listed for consideration on 28.2.2019. However, arguments were finally heard on 8th March, 2019 and judgment was pronounced on 15th March, 2019. The fact remains that after 20.2.2019 petitioner was discharged from PGI and it is a case of petitioner that after recovery to some extent, he came to Shimla. But during this period, no such prayer was made and now when final judgment has gone against him, he has come with concocted story. Therefore, the plea of petitioner is not sustainable that on account of ailment he could not impart instructions to counsel and could not file the rejoinder. 5. Further, judgment sought to be reviewed was not passed only on the basis of reply filed by respondent, rather it has been decided on the facts and documents placed on record with petition and also the record of CWP No. 3572 of 2014 titled Sat Pal vs. State of H.P. which was filed by petitioner himself and summoned for consideration at the instance of petitioner. How and in what manner opportunity to file rejoinder would facilitate the parties to get justice, is also a mystery. In fact, no material with regard to illegality, irregularity, mistake of fact and/or law in the judgment, warranting review thereof, has been pointed out. 6. XXX XXX XXX 7. In aforesaid discussion, I find that no ground for reviewing the impugned judgment is made out. Hence petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 8. By taking lenient view, no cost has been imposed.