JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. I.A. No. 1769 of 2017 I.A. No. 1769 of 2017 is an application for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing this petition. 2. Having gone through this application, we are satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring this petition within time. We accordingly condone the said delay. 3. I.A. No. 1769 of 2017 stands allowed. Civil Review No. 64 of 2016 4. The petitioner after losing her case in the Letters Patent Court as also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court now seeks review of the order dated 22nd August, 2016 passed in L.P.A. No. 341 of 2016. 5. At the outset, Mr. R.R. Mishra, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that now this review petition has been rendered infructuous. The review applicant had appeared in J.C.E.C.E.B examination for the academic-session 2016-2017, which is the subject of this proceeding. Two academic-sessions have subsequently completed and the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in the present proceeding. 6. Besides the above, on merits, we find that the plea urged on behalf of the review petitioner, that the facts of the case were not properly appreciated by the Division Bench and that the stand taken by the Controller of Examination that 50% marks for the defective questions shall be awarded to the petitioner was, in fact, an admission of the stand taken by the review petitioner and while so, the judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2016 passed in L.P.A. No. 341 of 2016 warrants review, cannot be accepted. We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the review petitioner for the reason that the plea that the facts of the case were not appreciated by the Court is not a ground for reviewing the order. The review petitioner has taken a chance by filing Special Leave Petition against the order dated 22nd August, 2016 passed in L.P.A. No. 341 of 2016 and now it is not open to the review petitioner to contend that facts of the case were not properly appreciated by the Court. Insofar as the stand taken by the Controller of Examination that 50% marks may be awarded to the petitioner is concerned, we find that the Letters Patent Court has not decided the appeal on the basis of the aforesaid stand taken by the Controller of Examination. 7. Insofar as the stand taken by the Controller of Examination that 50% marks may be awarded to the petitioner is concerned, we find that the Letters Patent Court has not decided the appeal on the basis of the aforesaid stand taken by the Controller of Examination. 7. The Letters Patent Court in its order dated 22nd August, 2016 has recorded a specific finding, thus ; “Considering the peculiar situation presented by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that no straight-jacket formula can be evolved for remedying the situation. If her plea is accepted, it may present manifold problems in future. Grant of full marks to the petitioner, on accepting her plea that in any event she is entitled for full marks for 28 questions which were missing from the question booklet, would amount to doing violence to the very essence of competition. May be, it would encourage others also not to make complaint at all, if he/she is faced with a similar situation. The plea taken by the petitioner that she has scored better in Biology paper and in all probability she would have scored in Physics and Chemistry papers also, in proportion to her score in the Biology paper, is neither here nor there and, in fact, is not borne from marks obtained by her in 39 questions in Physics and 33 questions in Chemistry. The decision in Vikas Pratap Singh Case (Supra) also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. In the said case for 8 incorrect questions, marks was awarded on pro-rata basis to all the candidates on reevaluation and thus, the deserving candidates made to the merit list.” 8. From the orders passed by the writ Court as well as the Letters Patent Court, it is apparent that the plea taken by the petitioner is a question of fact which were seriously disputed by the respondents. 9. Having examined the records produced before us, we find that no ground akin to the grounds mentioned under order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C. has been raised in the present proceeding and accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.