Important Point
Once the Supreme Court has passed an order though dismissing SLP in limine, order passed by High Court stands merged with order passed by Supreme Court & High Court is devoid of jurisdiction to review the order.

Order

Leave granted. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the Kerala High Court, made on January 16, 1996 in R.P. No. 204/95 in C.R.P. No. 2724/94.

2. The dispute has arisen with regard to the election to the Committee of Sree Narayana Dharmasangam Trust. The Trust is governed by the scheme framed by the High Court in A.S. No. 14/56, dated March 26, 1959. Since the term of the elected body was to expire on 10.8.94, the Trust Board on 4.7.94 decided to conduct election on 26.7.94. Disputes had arisen as to the validity of the elections held on 26.7.94 and the suit came to be filed. Ad-interim injunction was granted by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Attingal in O.S. No. 247/94 on 22.11.94. Against the interlocutory order passed by the appellate authority in C.M.A. No. 167/94, dated December 2, 1994 C.R.P. No. 2727/94 came to be filed. The High Court by judgment dated June 19, 1995 allowed the revision, set aside the order of the appellate authority and gave certain directions. Calling that matter in question S.L.P. (C) No. 13667/95 came to be filed in this Court. This Court on June 29, 1995 passed the following order:

"We do not find any ground warranting interference since it is an individual case and that too by an interim order. The S.L.P. is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit a s expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order."

3. Thereafter, an application came to be filed to review the order passed by the High Court in the revision, which had been dismissed by the High Court holding that the order passed by the High Court stood merged with the order of this Court. As a consequence, the High Court cannot review the order. Thus this appeal, by special leave.

4. Shri P.S. Poti, learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that this Court did not decide the matter on merits. When the patent error is apparent on the face of the record, it is always reviewable by the High Court and, therefore, the order dismissing the S.L.P. does not operate as a final order. Therefore, the High Court has the power to review its order. We find no merit in the contention. In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhimaji Ingle1, this Court has considered the similar controversy. The facts therein were that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal passed an order in O.A. No. 1169/93 against which S.L.P. was filed in this Court. It was dismissed by this Court on August 28, 1993. Pending the S.L.P., a review petition was filed in the Tribunal. The Tribunal reviewed its order. When that order came to be challenged, this Court held thus:

"4. But in this case, when the self-same main order was confirmed by this Court, the question arises whether the Tribunal has had power under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC or any other appropriate provision under the Tribunals Act to review the orders passed by it and confirmed by this Court by refusing to grant leave. We find that the exercise of the review power is deleterious to the judicial discipline. Once this court has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal, that becomes final. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot have any power to review the previous order which stands merged with the order passed by this Court.

5. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that though the Tribunal was communicated with the order of this Court dated 25.8.1995, it has thereafter passed the order, it would mean that though it had the knowledge of dismissal of the order passed by this Court, the Tribunal has exercised the power of review and that, therefore, it cannot be said to be illegal. We are wholly unable to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel. We could appreciate that if the Tribunal had no knowledge of dismissal of the SLP it might, in certain circumstances, review its earlier order, e.g., if it was found that the order was vitiated by any manifest error of law apparent on