IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1129 of 2009 LAKHENDRA PRASAD SINGH son of late Ram Bakhshish Singh resident of village Jhikti, P.S. Kurhani, District Muzaffarpur at present Mechanical Helper in Mechanical Division, Road Construction Department, Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner- cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical Wing, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintendent Engineer Mechanical Circle, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Executive Engineer (Machi) Mechanied Division, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh For the Respondents :- Dr. Md. Raisul Haque, G.P. V ------ 5 10/09/2009 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Government Pleader No. V appearing for the respondents. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 9.5.2008 passed in Civil Review No. 169 of 2007. This appeal has been filed after a delay of 323 days. On perusal of the reasons indicated in I.A. No. 5576 of 2009 filed for condonation of delay in filing this appeal, we do not find that any sufficient cause has been shown therein. That apart, we find that there is hardly any scope to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 9.5.2008 whereunder he has rejected the review application in view of the limited scope of such review. Even though learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that in view of annexure-17 to the - 2 - review application, the letter dated 05.07.2003 (Annexure- 16) was a forged document, the materials on record could not clearly substantiate such contention raised belatedly by the appellant. The fact remains that the appellant himself had appeared in the limited examination. Learned counsel for the appellant states that such limited examination was not held in accordance with the earlier direction issued by the High Court. We do not think that it is appropriate for us to go behind every order and find out some lacuna somewhere. The learned Single Judge has already dealt with the matter. We do not find sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing this appeal nor we find any merit in this appeal. This letters patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. I.A. no. 5576 of 2009 also stands rejected. (P. K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AMIN