A review application cannot be entertained after the dismissal of a Special Appeal without prior leave, reaffirming the doctrine of merger and judicial discipline.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

C.M. Application No.NIL of 2025 (Application for Condonation of Delay in filing the Review Application):

1. The review application has been filed with some delay. The review application is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit wherein filing of a Special Appeal is said to be the cause of delay in filing the review application. Adopting a liberal approach, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned.

Order on Review Application:

2. The instant application has been filed seeking review of judgment and order dated 03.07.2024, passed in Writ-A No.3191 of 2019.

3. The review applicant had filed a Special Appeal Defective No.629 of 2024 against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2024, passed by this court, which is sought to be reviewed. The Special Appeal was filed after expiry of the period of limitation alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Appeal. The application for condonation of delay was allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal was condoned by means of an order dated 08.01.2025. After condonation of delay in filing the Special Appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the Special Appeal be dismissed as withdrawn and the Special Appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

4. Neither the learned counsel for the appellant had sought liberty to file an application for review of the order nor had the Court granted such a liberty to him while dismissing his Special Appeal.

5. Order XLVII, Rule 1 (a) C.P.C. provides that any person aggrieved by an order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal was preferred, may file an application seeking review of the order. Although the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure do not in terms apply to the writ proceedings, the basic principles of civil procedure are applicable to writ proceedings also.

6. The learned counsel for the review applicant has relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Thakur Singh Vs. Dinanath Sah , 1937 SCC Online Pat 73

(ii) Badrunnisha Mohmmad Sikadar Vs. Keshiben Jethalal Parmar & Anr., 2000 SCC Online Guj 53

(iii) Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Kerala and another , (2000) 6 SCC 359

(iv) Kanoria Industries Limited and Ors. Vs. Union of India and others , 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7215

(v) Khoday Distilleries Limited Vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited , (2019) 4 SCC 376

7. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. , AIR 1964 SC 1372 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: -

“Order 47 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Code permits an application for review being filed “from a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred”. …The crucial date for determining whether or not the terms of Order 47. Rule 1(1) are satisfied is the date when the application for review is filed. If on that date no appeal has been filed it is competent for the Court hearing the petition for review to dispose of the application on the merits notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, subject only to this, 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.”

8. The judgment in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. was followed in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala , (2000) 6 SCC 359 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the maintainability of a review application after filing of a Special Leave Petition in light of the provision contained in Order XLVII, Rule 1 (a) C.P.C. and drew the following conclusions: -

(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decis