-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 45 OF 2008 IN REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 71 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1877 OF 2006. Ashok Kumar Singh. ..Appellant. Versus Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation. ..Respondent. Mr. Ashok M. Sarogi for the Appellant. Mr. S. K. Talsania, Sr. Counsel a/w Ms. Kavita Anchan i/b M/s. M. V. Kini and Co., for the Respondent. Coram : P. B. Majmudar & R. V. More, JJ. Date : December 16, 2009. P. C. : 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 18th July 2009 of the learned Single Judge passed in Notice of Motion No. 45 of 2009, by which the learned Single Judge rejected the notice of motion by not condoning the delay in filing the review petition as the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the delay is not properly explained. 2. During the course of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel Mr. Sarogi submitted that the original order passed by the learned Single Judge was confirmed in appeal being Appeal No. 164 of 2009, against -: 2 :- which an SLP was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has granted liberty to apply for review. Learned counsel further submitted that since the order of the learned Single Judge merged with the appellate order, the review of the order of the appellate court has to be sought, and unfortunately this aspect escaped from the notice of the learned counsel at the time of preferring an application before the learned Single Judge. He further submitted that once the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed in appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge merges with the order of the appellate Court, therefore, the review is required to be preferred before the Division Bench and not before the learned Single Judge. Mr. Sarogi further submitted that the review application will be moved before the Division Bench who has disposed of the appeal and he would like to withdraw the present appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even such application for review will also be time barred. 3. Considering the facts in the present case, we are of the opinion that once the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed in appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge merges with the order of the appellate court order. We therefore allow the appellant to withdraw this appeal to prefer a review application before the Division Bench. 4. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to whether the delay can be condoned or not. We only allow the appellant to -: 3 :- withdraw the appeal in order to enable the appellant to prefer the review application before the Division Bench. We accordingly allow the appellant to withdraw this appeal. We again make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on any issue even on the question of the delay or on any other aspect of the matter. (R.V. MORE, J.) (P .B MAJMUDAR, J.)