Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The application for review entails inter-aila the question of very maintainability of review after unconditional withdrawal of an appeal preferred against the order sought to be reviewed.

2. Review is sought of certain portions of the Order dated 21st April, 2009 disposing of the application of the plaintiffs/applicants under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. The plaintiffs/applicants instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling certain shares of the plaintiff No. 6 company. It is the case of the plaintiffs/applicants that the said shares were pledged/placed as security with the defendants for the loan advanced by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The defendants claim to be the purchaser of the shares. Interim relief of restraining the defendants from dealing with the shares was claimed. Vide order dated 21st April, 2009 the said application of the plaintiffs for interim relief was allowed, subject to the condition of the plaintiffs within 45 days depositing in this court the loan amount with interest at the rate pleaded by the plaintiffs, till the date of deposit, and further subject to the plaintiffs filing an undertaking in this court, to, in the event of failing in their case making good to the defendants the loss, if any, suffered by the defendants owing to the interim order aforesaid, and calculated on the difference between the sale price of the shares as on 11th July, 2008 and on the date of final decision of the suit. In the review grievance is made to allowing interest till the date of deposit and to the other condition of filing an undertaking.

.3. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal being FAO(OS) No. 252/2009 against the said order. The said appeal came up before the Division Bench of this court on 3rd July, 2009 when the following order was made:

.After some arguments, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant seeks leave to withdraw the Appeal. He, however, submits that the time for compliance of the order passed by the Vacation Judge, pertaining to deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs with interest be extended upto14.7.2009. The time is extended accordingly. Dismissed as withdrawn.

4. It may be stated that the plaintiffs had filed IA No. 7844/2009 in the suit seeking extension of time to deposit in terms of the order dated 21st April, 2009, on the ground that they had instituted the appeal aforesaid but the said appeal was likely to be listed in the first week of July, 2009. The said application came up before the Vacation Judge of this court on 5th June, 2009 when the time for deposit was extended till 6th July, 2009.

.5. The application for review being otherwise barred by time is accompanied with .IA No. 8652/2009 for condonation of delay and IA No. 8653/2009 for exemption from filing the certified copy of the order dated 21st April, 2009.

6. Section 114 of the CPC inter-alia allows review of decree or order or judgment "from which no appeal has been preferred". The same is the language of Order 47 Rule 1(1)(a). In view of the said provisions and in view of Kabari Pvt. Ltd. v. Shivnath Shroff : AIR 1996 SC 742 and Hari Singh v. S. Seth : AIR 1996 Delhi 21 (DB), at the very outset query as to the maintainability of the review was raised.

7. The senior Counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants has drawn attention to Badrunnisha Mohammad Sikadar v. Keshiben Jethalal Parmar wherein a single judge of the Gujarat High Court relying upon Thakur Singh v. Dinanath Sah : AIR 1937 Pat 528 held that withdrawal of the appeal must be treated as if it had never been preferred within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and in view thereof held that it cannot be contended that review application is not maintainable for the reason of appeal having been preferred against the order sought to be reviewed. Reference in the said judgment is also made to Balling Vithaling Sakharpekar v. Shri Devasthan Fund : (1931) 33 Bom LR 378 containing the observation that if a litigant