By way of present review application, petitioner is seeking review of order dated 7.1.2013 passed by this Commission. Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed in which no period of delay has been mentioned. I have gone through the application for review as well as application for condonation of delay and perused the record. Vide order dated 7.1.2013, R.P. No.1095 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner has filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which the petitioner did not press as it wanted to file review petition before this Commission. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 4.7.2013 dismissed the Special Leave Petition as not pressed and gave liberty to the petitioner to file review petition before this Commission. The application for review thereafter has been filed only on 8.11.2013 alongwith the application for condonation of delay. I do not find any sufficient cause to condone the delay and as such the application for review is liable to be dismissed on this short ground as being barred by limitation. Even on merits, no sufficient grounds are made out for review of order dated 7.1.2013 passed by this Commission, in view of petitioner own reply filed before the District Forum. Relevant portion of the petitioner reply read as under; hat applicant Smt. Geeta Mantri under the margin money scheme of Rajasthan Khadi Board for installing stone crasher unit costing Rs.23.45 lacs had submitted an application for sanction of loan which was sponsored by the Rajasthan Khadi Board issuing eligibility certificate, Rs.3,00,000/- for work shed, Rs.16.45 lacs for machinery etc. and working capital Rs.4 lacs total 23.45 lacs, sent the same to the Central Co-operative Bank Bundi. It was for the Bank to process the application and to approve it. It is correct that the applicant for registration of the unit had deposited in this office vide DD No.071680 dated 13.2.2005 a sum of Rs.23,450/-. In view of the above reply of the petitioner, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record which calls for review of order dated 7.1.2013, passed by this Commission. The review application is accordingly dismissed.