IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.930 of 2011 In Civil Review No. 136/2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 4143 of 2011. ====================================================== M/S Trisole India Pharmaceuticals, a proprietorship firm having its place of business at Industrial Area, Hajipur, District Vaishali through its Proprietor Abu Mohammad, son of late Abdur Rab, resident of Mohalla Labagh, P.S. Pirbahore, Town and District – Patna .... .... Petitioner ……….. Appellant Versus 1. The United Commercial Bank through its Chairman – cum – Managing Director, 2. The Assistant General Manager, United Commercial Bank, Zonal Office, Mauryalok Complex, Dak Bungalow Road, Patna, 3. The Chief Manager, United Commercial Bank, Patna Main Branch, Exhibition Road, Patna, 4. The Authorised Officer, United Commercial Bank, Patna Main Branch, Exhibition Road, Patna, 5. The Principal Secretary – cum – Commissioner, Department of Industry, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. The Director of Industries, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents ………… Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Shankar Das, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 24-06-2011 This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 13th Patna High Court LPA No.930 of 2011 (2) dt.24-06-2011 2 / 2 2 May 2011 made on Civil Review No. 136 of 2011. The appellant filed the above CWJC No. 136 of 2011 for review of the judgment and order dated 14th March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 342 of 2011. The learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 13th May 2011 held that the appellant failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. In view of the said finding, the review application was rejected. Therefore, the present appeal. Learned Advocate Mr Ram Shankar Das has appeared for the appellant. He agrees that there was no error on the face of the record. However, he submits that the matter involves dispute under the Industrial Incentive Policy of 2006. In absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, what the appellant intends is to argue the petition afresh on merits under the guise of the review. A litigant cannot pursue the matter afresh on merits. The learned single Judge has rightly rejected the review application. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)