By the Court.—This is an application filed by the appellant seeking review of the judgment dated 10.7.2014 dismissing the appeal.

2. We have heard the review-applicant in person assisted by her husband Sri S. N. Bhargava.

3. First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 5.2.2012 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur dismissing the civil suit No. 1560 of 2010 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. as barred by limitation. After lengthy arguments from both the side, first appeal was dismissed. The judgment of this Court was challenged by the appellant by filing special leave petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court through Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 31685 of 2014 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 1.12.2014. After dismissal of the special leave petition by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appellant has again approached this Court with instant review petition.

4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with respect to the maintainability of review petition after dismissal of special leave petition. Admittedly, the special leave petition filed by review-applicant was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court without recording any reasons. The question of maintainability of an application seeking review of the judgment against which special leave petition has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court by a non-speaking order, without assigning any reasons, is no longer res integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Reference may be made to the decision in the case of Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and others v. Tarben Pravinlal Madhvani, 2004 (1) SCC 497, wherein it has been held that disposal of special leave petition against judgment of the High Court does not mean that the said judgment is affirmed by such dismissal. The order on a special leave petition at the admission stage also does not operate as res judicata.

5. In the case of Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another, JT 2009 (9) SC 110, the Supreme Court examined the doctrine of merger when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed either by a non-speaking order or a speaking order and when a Civil Appeal is dismissed with a speaking order or a non-speaking order. Considering the doctrine or merger and the right of review, it was observed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 33, 34 and 40 as under :

Doctrine of merger and review

“33. This question directly arises in the case before us.

“34. The doctrine of merger and the right of review are concepts which are closely inter-linked. If the judgment of the High Court has come up to this Court by way of a special leave, and special leave is granted and the appeal is disposed of with or without reasons, by affirmance or otherwise, the judgment of the High Court merges with that of this Court. In that event, it is not permissible to move the High Court by review because the judgment of the High Court has merged with the judgment of this Court. But where the special leave petition is dismissed - there being no merger, the aggrieved party is not deprived of any statutory right of review, if it was available and he can pursue it. It may be that the review Court may interfere, or it may not interfere depending upon the law and principles applicable to interference in the review. But the High Court, if it exercises a power of review or deals with a review application on merits - in a case where the High Court’s order had not merged with an order passed by this Court after grant of special leave - the High Court could not, in law, be said to be wrong in exercising statutory jurisdiction or power vested in it.”

In Paragraph 34 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court sum up the conclusions as follows :

“(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a Court, tribunal or any other authority before superior for