- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.36310 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4489 OF 2005 IN REJECTED CASE nO.291 OF 2004 IN REVIEW PETN.NO.1 OF 2008 M/s.Arudyog Engnieers Pvt.Ltd. .. Applicant Vs. M/s.Vanaz Engineers Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent -- Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan, Applicant in person. Shri S.R.Page for the respondent. -- CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ DATED : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2008 1. Heard the Applicant in person and the Advocate for the Respondent. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 440 days in filing the Review Petition in relation to the judgment and order dated 27th March, 2006. Drawing our attention to the decision in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported i AIR 2000 SC 2587, the Applicant in person - 2 - stated that there is no merger of the order passed by this Court with the Order of the Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petition has been rejected. 3. The law on the point that mere rejection of the Special Leave Petition does not amount to merger of the order passed by the High Court with the order of the Supreme Court is well settled. At the same time, taking into consideration the decisions by the Apex Court in V.M.Salgaocar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. V.M.Salgaocar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. V.M.Salgaocar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Commissioner of Income-tax, Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in 2000 AIR SCW 1702, Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran, Santhakumaran, Santhakumaran, reported in 1998 AIR SCW 4061 and Nivruti G. Ahire v. The State of Maharashtra, Nivruti G. Ahire v. The State of Maharashtra, Nivruti G. Ahire v. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007 Vol.109(2) Bom.L.R.1302, we do not find that it is appropriate for this Court to interfere in the review of the order once the Apex Court has rejected the Special Leave Petition against the said judgment. It is not a matter of merger but it is a matter of judicial discipline. It would not permit us to review the said judgment and order once the Supreme Court has refused to interfere in the Special Leave Petition. In any case, in the absence of sufficient cause being shown for condonation of delay of 440 days in filing the Review Petition, the question of condonation of delay also does not arise. - 3 - Hence the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently, the Review Petition No.1 of 2008 also stands dismissed. ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J ) ( SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J )