IMPORTANT POINT
When the Supreme Court has been approached for the self same relief, the review application has to be rejected at the threshold itself.

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—M. Ujwala, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 4 days in filing this review petition is on account of the time taken to decide as to whether the review petition is to be filed or SLP is to be filed. She further submits that the papers were also sent to her counter-part in Delhi.

2. Sri Vamshi Krishna, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the delay of 4 days in filing this review petition is not properly and cogently explained.

3. Appreciating the explanation offered, this Court deems it just to condone the delay of 4 days in filing this review petition. Accordingly Misc. Civil. No. 7798 of 2010 is allowed.

4. The petitioner has sought the review of the order, dated 15.9.2009 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 24816 of 2009. The Trial Court’s order, dated 15.4.2009, refusing to grant permission to file the written statement was impugned in the said writ petition. Not finding bona fide reasons for the two years’ delay in filing the written statement, this Court confirmed the Trial Court’s order and dismissed the writ petition.

5. Ms. Ujwala, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there have been multiple documents arising from voluminous transactions. To cull out the information and compute the amounts regarding the entitlement/liability of the parties herein, the petitioner took little more time. She submits that this aspect of the matter was not clearly brought out in the course of the arguments. She fairly submits that though there is no error on the face of the order, the lapse on the part of the Counsel should not put the party to any prejudice or injustice.

6. According to the learned Counsel, this review petition is maintainable, as the same is filed before the filing of the SLP. To advance this submission, she relied on paragraph No. 38 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Kunhayammed and Others v State of Kerala and Another, AIR 2000 SC 2587: 2000 (6) SCC 359: JT 2000 (9) SC 110. The same is extracted hereinbelow:

“38. The review can be filed even after SLP is dismissed is clear from the language of Order 47, Rule 1(a). Thus, the words “no appeal has been preferred” in Order 47, Rule 1(a) would also mean a situation where special leave is not granted. Till then there is no appeal in the eye of law before the superior Court. Therefore, the review can be preferred in High Court before special leave is granted, but not after it is granted. The reason is obvious. Once special leave is granted the jurisdiction to consider the validity of the High Court’s order vests in the Supreme Court and the High Court cannot entertain a review thereafter, unless such a review application was preferred in the High Court before special leave was granted”.

7. The learned Counsel further submits that the Trial Court did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent (PW1).

8. Sri Vamshi Krishna, the learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a threshold bar to the very maintainability of the review petition. He submits that the petitioner had challenged this Court’s order, dated 15.9.2009 in SLP No. 29872 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The said SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, by its order, dated 4.12.2009. He submits that on the confirmation of this Court’s order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot seek the review of this Court’s order. He submits that this Court’s order, dated 15.9.2009 is merged in the Supreme Court’s order, dated 4.12.2009. According to him, if any review petition is to be filed, it has to be only in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

9. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that the ground, which is being urged in support of the review petition was urged in the course of the arguments in the writ petition itself.

10. Ms. Ujwala, in the course of her rejoinder, submits that the doctrine of merger has no application, as the r