Dismissal of a special leave petition by the Supreme Court merges the order of the High Court with the order of the Supreme Court, and therefore, the High Court has no jurisdiction to review its order.

1. Even though the petition posted was only to dispense with the production of the original Order, maintainability of the review application itself was heard even at its SR stage.

2. Against an order of ad-interim injuction, a Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the basis of ad-interim injunction, police protection was also granted by trial Court, against which also a revision petition was field. Both the revisions were heard by me, and I allowed those Revisions, namely, C.R.P.Nos.997 and 998 of 1998 as per my order dated 14-7-1998. I gave certain directions to the lower Court that the property itself will have to be redelivered and the revision petitioner (E.K.Palanisami) must be put in possession forthwith, and without any further application, and if necessary, he must be restored with possesion of the property with police help.

3. It is not disputed by the review petitioners herein that against the common order passed by me in the above revision petitions, a special leave petition was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court, and the same was also dismissed. It is after the dismissal of the S.L.P., the present Review Application is filed.

4. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for review petitioners that in view of the decision reported in Kapoor Chand v. Ganesh Dutt, AIR 1993 SC 1145 filing of areview application is not barred if the S.L.P. is dismissed in limine. It was further argued that a reading of Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that it bars a review petition only if the appeal provided under the Civil Procedure Code is exhausted. The further argument is that appeal to Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India being not an appeal provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, Order passed by the Supreme Court in not entertaining the S.L.P. in limine is not a binding precedent. How far this contention could be accepted is the only question to be decided in this case.

5. I will first consider the decision reported in Kapoor Chand v. Ganesh Dutt, AIR 1993 SC 1145. Relevant portion of paragraph 15 reads thus:-

"... The question regarding merger of the judgment under review in the order of this Court would have arisen only after this Court had considered the special leave petition on merits and had passed an order on the matters dealt with in the judgment of the High Court dated July 23, 1987. Till such an order was passed by this Court, it was competent for the High Court to review its judgment datedJuly 23, 1987 and the review petition could not be dismissed as not maintainable merely because special leave petition had been filed against the said judgment before the Court and was pending. The special leave petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations." (Italics supplied)

6. It is clear from a reading of the said decision that the review application was filed at a time when the S.L.P. was under consideration by the Honble Supreme Court. What is the effect of dismissal of SLP, and whether after the dismissal of the SLP even if it be a non-speaking Order, will it bar the filling of a review application, came up for consideration in the decision reported in The State of Maharashtra and another v. Shri Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle,1996 (3) Supreme 245. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the decision read thus:-

"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. It is next contended