IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.192 of 2006 MEGHU MISTRY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 02.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent- opposite parties in respect of I.A.No.5321 of 2006. Through this interlocutory application, the petitioner has tried to explain the delay of 83 days in preferring this civil review application against the order of the Division Bench by which Letters Patent Appeal has been dismissed on merits holding that he had no legal ground or actionable ground to seek quashing of the impugned order of transfer. On going through the averments made in the I.A., we find that the explanation is not satisfactory. Further, on merits we find that the order of transfer is almost three years old and interest of justice does not require entertaining this application further. Hence, the limitation petition is rejected. As a result, the civil review application stands dismissed as barred by limitation. BT (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J)