Judgment B.S. Verma, J. This is delay condonation application no.3469 of 2009, moved on behalf of respondent nos.5, 6 and 7, for condoning the delay in filing the review application no.304 of 2009. 2. Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Review application is treated to be filed within time. 3. This is review application no.304 of 2009, moved by the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7, to review the order dated 28.8.2008 passed by Hon’ble Justice P.C. Verma, by which the impugned order under challenge was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Additional Revenue Commissioner, with a direction to frame the question(s) of law and decide the second appeal afresh expeditiously preferably within four months. 4. Sri Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel appearing for the review applicant/respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 has contended that the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, has remanded the case with a direction to frame substantial question(s) of law, but while doing so, the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.285 of 2001 (M/S) and Writ Petition No.60 of 2000 (M/S) on 19.5.2006 was not considered and thus the order under review is per incuriam. 5. On the other hand, Sri Alok Mehra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/petitioner, has contended that on the same issue in Writ Petition No.1549 of 2006 (M/S) the learned Single Judge of this Court has delivered a judgment dated 27.6.2008, which has also been assailed before the Apex Court by filing SLP No.23406 of 2008 and by the order dated 13.9.2010, the same has been affirmed by the Apex Court, with the following observation:- “A reading of order dated 21.7.2006 shows that the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner allowed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner without framing any question of law much less substantial question of law. This was in clear violation of mandate of Section 331(4) of the Act, which reads as under: “331(4) A second appeal shall lie on any of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) from the final order of decree, passed in an appeal under sub-section (3), to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 6 of the Schedule aforesaid” In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court did not commit any error by setting aside the order of the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.” 6. Since the judgment of the Apex Court would prevail upon the judgment of the Division Bench passed by this Court, therefore, no good ground is made out to review the order dated 28.8.2008. The review application is accordingly dismissed.