-:- 1 -:- Review Petition No.363 of 2011. 14.10.2011 :- Shri S.S.Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the Respondents/State, on advance copy. Heard. O R D E R BY filing this review petition, the applicant is seeking review of the order dated 23.02.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.1298 of 2001. Following was the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.02.2010 :- “Vide an order dated January 14, 2010, passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3746 of 2005 (VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. Vs. M.P.S.E.Board and Another) the Supreme Court has directed that the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 Act are to be treated as impliedly overruled, on enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In view of the aforesaid directions issued by the Apex Court, the impugned award passed by the M. P. Arbitration Tribunal is declared as infructuous. The present petition is disposed of -:- 2 -:- accordingly. However, any of the contesting parties would be at liberty to seek its remedy under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in accordance with law. C.C. as per rules.” [2] It has been stated by learned counsel for the applicant that now the Supreme Court in the Case of Ravikant Bansal v/s M.P.Rural Road Development Autority and another vide order dated 29.07.2011 has taken a view that if the arbitration clause itself mentions that the arbitration will be by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, the matter can be referred to the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal. In the circumstances, according to the applicant the order passed on 23.02.2010 by a Division Bench of this Court needs to be reviewed. [3] Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, we find that the Explanation of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based if reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of the superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such -:- 3 -:- judgment. In the circumstances, in our considered view the ground raised by the applicant seeking review of the order is not available to the applicant. [4] Accordingly the review petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. If the applicant feels that the order passed by this Court on 23.02.2010 needs to be challenged in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, it is always open for the applicant to do so. [ Shantanu Kemkar ] [ Prakash Shrivastava ] JUDGE JUDGE (AKS)