D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Petitioner-Shashi Bhushan Asthana has filed this application for review of the order dated 15th September. 1997 passed in this Writ Petition No. 18653 of 1996, on the ground that the subject-matter involved in the writ petition was cognizable by a Division Bench and as such could not have been decided by the single Judge and therefore the order dated 15th September. 1997 passed by me sitting singly is without jurisdiction. No other ground, however, has been taken in the review application. Though, however, either in the application for review or in the affidavit in support thereof, the petitioner did not disclose that he had filed a Special Appeal before Hon'ble Division Bench against the said order dated 15th September, 1997, but in course of the arguments learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. J. P. Singh, Advocate admitted at the Bar that a Special Appeal against the said order was preferred and was dismissed by the Division Bench. He, however, could not produce the order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the Special Appeal. Mr. L. P. Naithani, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand though confirmed the statement made by the learned counsel for petitioner, but he also could not either produce a copy of the order passed by Hon'ble the Division Bench or furnish the date of disposal or number of the Special Appeal.
(2.) Mr. Singh was confronted with the question whether this point was taken before the Division Bench in the Special Appeal or not. In answer, he has submitted that Hon'ble the Division Bench, though the point was raised, did not think it fit to record any observation on that ground, but however was pleased to observe, without recording anything in the order itself, in the Court that the petitioner is free to approach the learned single Judge. Though such a statement is being made at the bar but the same has not been disclosed either in the application for review or the affidavit in support thereof.
(3.) If it were so in that event it should have been pleaded in the application for review so as to get rid of the principle, under which a review application can be made either in the case where no appeal is provided or in the case where appeal though provided no appeal has been filed. Review as provided under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code can be applied for against a decree or order, from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or from which no appeal is allowed. The procedure for review in Order XLV1I prescribes the same process incorporating Identical expressions. Though by reason of Section 141. C.P.C, the provisions of the Code would not be applicable in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet the principle would be applicable while deciding the question in connection with the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, after having been unsuccessful in the Special Appeal, there is no scope for preferring an application for review. Then again, on admission of the learned counsel for petitioner that question was raised before the Hon'ble Division Bench in appeal but the Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the appeal. Even If no reason is recorded in the order of dismissal, the order sought to be reviewed having stood merged in the order of dismissal, the point ought to have been considered to have been overruled by implication, therefore, it is no more open to the applicant to apply for review thereafter.;