Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 11 and 12. 2. In the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 24.07.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.15788 of 2008 whereby while allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent nos. 11 and 12, he has set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Purnea Division in Revision Case No.18 of 2006-07. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge solely on the ground that the learned Commissioner, Purnea without considering the point of limitation entertained the revision petition and passed the impugned order. He contended that the ground on which the writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge is erroneous on fact. He has drawn our attention towards the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner in Case No.18/06-07. The said order would clearly show that the learned Divisional Commissioner had condoned the delay and admitted the revision application while calling for the lower court records and issuing notice to the opposite party. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondentwrit petitioners submitted that though the petitioners had taken several points in the writ petition, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition solely on the ground that the limitation caused in filing the revision petition was not condoned. He contended that since the other points argued on behalf of the writ petitioners were not adjudicated, the appeal should not be allowed only because the limitation was condoned by the revisional court. 5. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the other points argued on behalf of the writ petitioners were duly considered by the learned single Judge but he did not find any force in those points. 6. Be that as it may, since the judgment impugned passed by the learned single Judge is based on wrong appreciation of fact, as the delay caused in filing the revision petition was already condoned while admitting the revision petition by the revisional authority, the judgment impugned can not be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the judgment dated 24.07.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.15788 of 2008 is set aside. 8. 7. Accordingly, the judgment dated 24.07.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.15788 of 2008 is set aside. 8. The writ petition is remanded back to the learned single Judge for deciding the case afresh after hearing the parties on all points. 9. The appeal stands allowed.