spb/- 1 cra473-03.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2003 Vishal Tower Co-operating Hsg.Society Ltd., Thane, through its Chairman-Mr.Nazarth D’ Penha ... Applicant. V/s. 1. Shri V.S. Ghag and 11 others. ... Respondents. --- Mr. M.D. Angal for the Applicant. Mr. Pramod J. Pawar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Mahendra Agawekar i/b Mandar Limaye for Respondent No.12. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 27th JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1 The short question that arises for my consideration is whether this Revision is maintainable? 2 The applicant is the original plaintiff who filed a suit bearing R.C. Suit No. 360 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, against the respondents for specific performance of agreements of sale of flats effected in favour of its members and for declaration and permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit against the respondents spb/- 2 cra473-03.sxw (defendant nos. 1 and 3 to 9 in the suit). Aggrieved by the decision they had filed an appeal, bearing civil appeal no. 140 of 2001 in the District Court, Thane. By its judgment and order dated 18th January, 2003, the IV Additional District Judge, Thane, allowed the Appeal in part and directed the respondents to execute the conveyance in favour of the society but after demarcating the suit property as per FSI as shown in the map annexed to the decree. At the first instance, the applicant filed an application for review before the very court which was dismissed. Thereafter, the revision applicant has filed the present revision application, challenging the original decision rendered by the appellate court in the civil appeal no. 140 of 2001 as well as the order rejecting the review application. 3 Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the High Court to call for the record and proceedings of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to it and in which no appeal lies thereto. Power under section 115, therefore, can be exercised only if the order against which the revision is filed is not appealable. In the present case, in my view, second appeal lies against the original decision of the appellate court and consequently, the present revision application is not maintainable. spb/- 3 cra473-03.sxw 4 Mr. Angal, learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that since review application was filed against the original judgment and decree passed in appeal no. 140 of 2001, second appeal was not maintainable. Consequently Revision Application is maintainable. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred or by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed or by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for review of judgment and order. Effect of Rule 1 of Order 47 is that if the appeal has been filed, a review application is not maintainable. However, there is no converse condition. An appeal can be filed against the original appealable order, subject, of course, to the law of limitation, even after dismissal of a review application against it. In fact day in and day out appeals are filed after decision of a review application, challenging both the original decree as well as order passed in the review. Condition precedent for entertaining a revision is that the order sought to be revised must not be appealable. Since original order passed in the First Appeal No. 140 of 2001 is appealable under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revision application is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. spb/- 4 cra473-03.sxw 5 Revision application is accordingly dismissed. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]