JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Re: I.A. No. 8966 of 2018 Heard Shri Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the applicant, Shri Siddharth Prasad, learned counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and Mrs. Nutan Sahay, learned counsel for the State for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. The review application is reported to be delayed by 20 days. 3. We have considered the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and we find that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing the review application. The delay is condoned and the review application shall be treated to be within time. 4. I.A. No. 8966 of 2018 stands allowed accordingly. Re: Civil Review No. 469 of 2018 This review application has been filed contending that there is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the Division Bench while proceeding to dismiss the appeal and relegating the applicant-appellant for filing a suit for damages has assumed that it is not in dispute that third party rights have already been created and the L.P.G. distributorship has been allotted and given to another person. 2. Learned counsel submits that this eventuality does not appear to have been correctly assumed on facts inasmuch as the notice which has been issued for participation in the Online computerized draw of lots is dated 23rd November, 2018 fixing 29th November, 2018. 3. Learned counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation, however, submits that during the course of argument an oral submission had been made informing the Court about intervention of third party rights. 4. We are of the considered opinion that such facts were not on record nor the applicant-appellant had any opportunity to rebut the same. Apart from this, the subsequent facts relating to the online computerized lottery as proposed itself establishes that no third party rights had been created. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 14th August, 2018 clearly proceeds on an erroneous assumption of facts and, therefore, the same is an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the parties agree that this review application be finally disposed of and the appeal itself be heard on merits. 6. Consequently, we allow this application and recall the judgment dated 14th August, 2018 and restore the appeal to its original number.