IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.8 of 2008 AWADHESH KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA . Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . ----------- 7. 8.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the respondents on 7.9.2010. Let the office trace out and place on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding in C.W.J.C. No. 7560 of 2006, that the petitioner was a partner in the firm was an error of record. Liberty has been granted in L.P.A. No. 408 of 2007 for filing of a review application. It is submitted that at Page 20A of the writ petition, in the demand notice dated 20.5.1999 addressed to the father of the petitioner, the words ‘proprietor’ has been ticked for identification and not the word ‘partner’. It is next submitted that it had been averred in Paragraph-25 of the writ application that the petitioner was never a partner in the firm. This could be proved by Form-5A of the Employees Provident Fund, 1997. The respondents in their counter affidavit to the writ petition have not denied the statements made in Paragraph-25 of the writ application. Counsel for the respondents relied upon 2 Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit both dated 26.4.2006. He submits that the word specifically used in the said two communications from the firm in question was that Sri Awadhesh Kumar Jhunjhunwala was a partner. A partnership cannot be consisting of one person only. If Sri Awadhesh Kumar Jhunjhunwala was a partner, there had to be others along with him. There is no material on record in the writ application or in the review application of what changes may have taken place in the establishment in question in between the date of the demand notice issued in 1999 and the communication sent on behalf of the firm dated 26.4.2006. The scope for interference in a review petition is extremely narrow. It is only an error apparent on the face of the record which may justify invocation of the review jurisdiction. If a further enquiry is required and further questions arise to be deciphered the matter stands outside the review jurisdiction. It may only be noticed that in the writ petition no rejoinder to the counter affidavit was filed denying the recitals contained in Annexure- A series as discussed above. There is no merit in this review application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)