IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.8 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 16875/2009) The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Versus Subha Jha & Ors ---------------------------------- with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1034 of 2011 Subha Jha Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 2. 21.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner in Civil Review no. 8 of 2011 and for the petitioner in MJC No. 1034 of 2011. The petitioner in the former application is the respondent/opposite party in the latter and the petitioner in the contempt matter is the respondent in the review application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in the review application submits that an application for condoning the delay had in fact been filed before the Commissioner. Inadvertently it could not be brought to the attention of this Court in CWJC No., 16875 of 2009.The respondent was well aware of this fact but did not place the facts correctly before the writ court when he urged that it was not accompanied by any petition for condonation of delay leading to the order dated 10.12.2010 from which the contempt application arises. Counsel for the respondent in the review application submits that no misrepresentation had been made. The order of the writ court also notices the statement of the petitioner that the Commissioner also did not pass any order condoning the delay. The jurisdiction of this Court in review would be confined to the pleadings as they were placed in CWJC No. 16875 of 2009. The error of record has to be pointed out from the same. If the petitioner himself, 2 despite being in possession of materials, did not place it before this Court in the writ petition even though they had filed a counter affidavit the Court is not persuaded to enlarge its jurisdiction in review so as to go behind its order to include materials which were earlier available but not placed before it. Had the respondents made a misrepresentation and obtained orders from this Court the matter would have been entirely different. The Court has considered the statement in the review application. Even if an application for condonation had been filed as is sought to be urged, it had to be pressed. Even if it was not pressed the Commissioner was required to pass an order upon it. Before the appeal could be admitted by the Commissioner, delay had to be condoned. The delay could not have been condoned without first issuing notice to the respondents and hearing him as a right had accrued to him by virtue of revision being barred by limitation. The order sheet of the Commissioner does not reflect that any such procedure for issuance of notice in the limitation matter was followed before admitting the appeal much less has it been decided in the final order. Counsel for the respondents has placed before the Court a copy of the written argument filed before the court below. In para 8 of the same the specific objection has been taken with regard to the aspect of delay and limitation. There is no occasion for review of the order dated 10.12.2010 in CWJC No. 16875 of 2009. Civil Review No. 8 of 2011 is dismissed. Put up MJC No. 1034 of 2011 at the same position on 12.10.2011 for compliance. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 3