- (1.) THIS review application has been filed by the petitioner on 9-12-1960 against the judgment passed in appeal by the Division Bench consisting of Sarvshri R. N. Hawa and Khem Chand dated the 8th September, 1960.
(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by the Government Advocate that this review petition was time barred by one day. The counsel for the petitioner filed an affidavit that as the impugned order was not announced in the presence of the parties and the petitioner came to know of this judgment in the second week of the October, he applied for the copy of the impugned order and filed a review petition at the earliest possible opportunity, the delay for one day may kindly be condoned. In view of the fact that the order sought to be reviewed was not announced in the presence of the parties, the delay of one day could easily be condoned and the review is held to be within limitation. The second preliminary objection raised by the Government Advocate was that against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Boards the petitioner has already filed a Writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan in exercise of their extra-ordinary jurisdiction which is larger than the jurisdiction available to the courts in appeal. The High Courtis seized of the matter and in view of this the present review petition of the petitioner is not maintainable. O. 47 r. l of the Civil Procedure Code clearly provides that where an appeal has been preferred against a particular order no review lies. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may be regarded as analogous to appeal and this review petition may be dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner concedes that writ petition has been filed before the High Court after this review petition was filed, but filing of this writ petition is no bar to his coming to this Board under a review application. The remedy of writ cannot be considered as similar to appeal. On this point of preliminary objection we are inclined to agree with the arguments put forward by the Government Advocate. There is much force in this contention that the writ application confers a wider jurisdiction on the High Court and can be considered analogous to appeal and thus in view of the writ application filed in the High Court the petitioner is barred from pursuing his remedy by way of review. In view of the fact that the writ petition is pending before the High Court this review petition of the petitioner is accordingly rejected. .;