ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No. 2688 of 2016 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 48 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, especially in paragraphs 3 and 4, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 48 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. This interlocutory application is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 218 of 2016 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose W.P. (C) No. 2647 of 2014 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 9th February, 2016, whereby, correction of roll code in the mark sheet of the Supplementary Secondary School Examination, 1995 dated 19th March, 1996 was not allowed by the learned Single Judge. This appellant is seeking correction in the mark sheet, issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, which had conducted examination for 10th Standard in the year 1995. Reasons:- 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Bihar School Examination Board had conducted examination for 10th Standard in the year 1995. This appellant had appeared, but, she failed in the regular examination and, hence, in Supplementary Secondary School Examination, it is alleged by this appellant that she had appeared and one mark sheet is produced, which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of the writ petition, in which, it is alleged by this appellant that she had been declared pass, but, now she is seeking correction in the said mark sheet, which was issued on 19th March, 1996. The writ petition was preferred in the year 2014. Thus, there is gross delay on the part of this appellant. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. 3. It further appears from the facts of the case that detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Board, in which, it has been stated that they have meticulously verified the tabulation register, which is preserved by the Board, which shows that the appellant's roll code no. was 1203 and her roll no. was 417. 3. It further appears from the facts of the case that detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Board, in which, it has been stated that they have meticulously verified the tabulation register, which is preserved by the Board, which shows that the appellant's roll code no. was 1203 and her roll no. was 417. The mark sheet which is annexed at Annexure-2 to the memo of the writ petition, preferred by this appellant, is not a genuine document at all. This aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. When genuineness of the document is in dispute, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. The best remedy available with this appellant is to file Civil Suit before the competent trial court. 4. It further appears from the facts of the case that this appellant (original petitioner) is in search of correction of roll code. Instead of roll code no. 1203, the appellant demands roll code no. 1202. This cannot be assigned to this appellant mainly for the reason that roll code no. 1202, as per original document preserved by the respondent-Board, has been assigned to one Rai Mani Marandi. Thus, roll code no. 1202 which is already assigned to Rai Mani Marandi, cannot be now given to this appellant and that too after approximately two decades. This aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P. (C) No. 2647 of 2014, preferred by this appellant vide judgment and order dated 9th February, 2016. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.