( 1 ) NO orders are necessary on C. M. No. 140/94 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in this case.

( 2 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10. 8. 94 refusing to review the judgment dated 8. 1. 87 passed in the suit by the trial Judge holding the suit to be not maintainable. Review application was rejected on the ground that the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment dated 8. 1. 87 in the suit was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18. 8. 87 before this Review application - though filed before the first appeal was preferred - is taken up for disposal. In other words, the review of the judgment in suit was refused because the regular appeal preferred against the judgment was itself dismissed on 18. 8. 87 before the review application came up for dis- posal 1994. It was held that the fact that the review was preferred earlier than the first appeal made no difference. The learned trial Judge followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries vs. Government ofa. P. (AIR 1964 SC 1372) and in particular on the following observations therein:

". . . . THAT if before the application for review is finally decided, the appeal itself has been disposed of, the jurisdiction of the Court hearing the review petition would come to an end. "

( 3 ) THE plaintiff in the suit whose suit has been held to be not maintainable and whose appeal and review applications have also been dismissed, has now filed this appeal against the order rejecting the review application.

( 4 ) THE appellant,appearing in person, has contended before us that in view of Section 153a of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (as amended in 1976), the review is maintainable. He contended that the judgment of the appellate Court dated 18. 8. 87 is a brief unreasoned one, reading: "the suit was misconceived and so is the appeal. Dismissed. " 427 and is no judgment at all and it is permissible to invoke Section 152 or even Section 151 to correct the judgment of the trial Court dated 8. 1. 87 holding the suit as not maintainable. Counsel Relied on upon Kyi Oh and Another vs. Ma Thet Pon (AIR 1926 P. C 29) to explain what is meant by omission mentioned in Section 152 CPC.

( 5 ) WE are of the view that, even assuming that an LPA is maintainable against the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to review the judgment in suit, there are no grounds made out by the appellant for taking a different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge.

( 6 ) UNDER Order 47 Rule I (a) CPC, an application for review of a judgment lies by any person aggrieved by a decree or order "from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred. " The propositions have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries case, firstly that if before the making of an application for review, an appeal from the judgment sought to be reviewed has already been filed and is pending, then the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the review application, secondly where the application for review is first made and thereafter an appeal is preferred (as done in this case), the review application can be disposed of provided the appellate Court has not disposed of the appeal before the review application is taken up for disposal. The present case falls within the second principle and the learned trial Judge rightly refused to hear the review application.

( 7 ) SO far as the contention that the first appeal was dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 (1) Civil Procedure Code and that too without giving reasons, and therefore it is no disposal in the eyes of law, is concerned, we are of the view that the Supreme Court, in Thungabhadra Industries case, has made no distinction between the disposal in limine or after notice or between a dismissal of the appeal with reason s and one without reasons. Nor is there any such specific provision in Order 47 Rule