Dmt 1 rpl52-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGNAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 52 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 637 OF 2003 Anand Ambadas Bhalerao. .. Review Petitioner. versus Janhit Manch & Ors. .. Respondents. ..... Mr. J.M.F. Warsi i/by Mathews J. Nedumpara for Review Petitioner. Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP for Respondent No. 3. Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rahul Dwarkadas and Ms. Rhia Marshall i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent Nos. 5 & 10. Mr. Chetan Yadav with Ms. Shreya Shah i/by Mr. Satyen Vora for Intervenors Tenants Association of Dmt 2 rpl52-11 Omkar & Navkar Chawl. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 09 DECEMBER 2011. P.C. : The Review Petition arises from a judgment of a Division Bench dated 20 November 2006 in Writ Petition No. 637 of 2003. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Fifth and Tenth Respondents has placed on record a copy of the order dated 29 November 2010 passed by the Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1419/2007 which arose from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 20 November 2006, together with other Special Leave Petitions. The Supreme Court has granted leave. Once the Supreme Court has granted leave and an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court, the recourse to the jurisdiction in review is clearly not available. As a matter of fact, Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. provides for a review against a decree Dmt 3 rpl52-11 or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred. A similar provision is contained in Section 114. Even apart from this, as a matter of judicial propriety, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain this Review Petition once the Supreme Court has granted leave in the proceedings arising out of the judgment of the Division Bench. We accordingly dismiss the Review Petition only on the ground of maintainability. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)