Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. These two Civil Review applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The petitioner filed a Civil Revision application marked as Civil Revision No. 1509/88 against an order dated 18-6-1988 passed in Title Suit No. 41/65 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, Patna, whereby and where under an application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. 3. In terms of an order dated 25-8-1988 the said Civil Revision application was dismissed and withdrawn. Thereafter suppressing the aforementioned fact, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 181/88 against the self same order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, Patna. 4. By an order dated 20-11-1989 this Court after taking serious note of the aforementioned suppression of fact held that in any event the Miscellaneous appeal was not maintainable. 5. However, in the meanwhile the petitioner had filed an application for review in this Court for reviewing the aforementioned order dated 25-8-1998 passed in Civil Revision No. 1509/88 which was marked as Civil Review No. 70/88. 6. Mr. Saxena, the learned Counsel appearing in both these applications submitted that the aforementioned Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed on a wrong premises in as much as the aforementioned Miscellaneous Appeal was maintainable. The learned Counsels in this connection has relied upon a decision of this court in Nand Kumar Sinha V/s. Rai Bahadur Pashupati Ghosh and Ors. AIR 1941 Pat 385; Babulal V/s. Jayaben -- and Gurmauj Saran Baluja V/s. Goyee C. Salim and Ors. -- . The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the fact that the aforementioned Review application No. 70/80 had already been filed and thereafter order was passed that the said application was to be heard along with Miscellaneous Appeal No. 181/88, there was no suppression of fact by the petitioners with regard to the dismissal of the earlier Civil Revision application No. 1509/88. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Sudharshan Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party in both these applications, on the other hand, submitted that the Civil Review application also the petitioner had suppressed a material fact that he has preferred a Letters Patent Appeal in this Court against the aforementioned order dated 20-11-1989 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 181/88 which has been registered as L.P.A. No. 97/89. The learned Counsel submitted that, on this ground alone this Civil Review application should be dismissed. 8. So far as Civil Review application No. 72/89 is concerned, in my opinion, the same is not maintainable. Order XLVII, Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a petition for Review is maintainable when there has been no appeal from the, decree or order sought to be reviewed. In this case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the aforementioned order dated 20-11-1989 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 181/88. 9. Further, Mr. Saxena sumitted that as he could not cite any decision in support of his contention that the Miscellaneous appeal was maintainable, the Civil Review application should be allowed. In my opinion, it is also no ground for reviewing an earlier order in terms of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. In any event, in my opinion, the decisions cited by the learned Counsel are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In Nand Kumar Sinha V/s. Pashupati Ghosh (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that an order striking off the names of defendant against whom suit was held to be not maintainable is appellableinas much as there by the court finally decided the suit as against the parties whose names were directed to be struck off from the plaint. Such an order was held to be a decree in as much as the same was final between the parties such is not the present case as Order XLIII, Rule 1 provides as to which order would be appellable. In law an order which has not been made appellable in terms of Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, no appeal lies therefrom unless the impugned order is in effect and substances a decree within the meaning of Sec. 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. In law an order which has not been made appellable in terms of Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, no appeal lies therefrom unless the impugned order is in effect and substances a decree within the meaning of Sec. 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. By refusing to implead a party to the suit, no final decision is taken with regard to the right of the party. A judgment passed in such a suit is not binding upon a party who has not been impleaded therein and he can always file another suit for a deciaration that the judgment passed in the earlier suit not binding upon him. 12. The other decisions cited by the leaped Counsel i.e. AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1987 and -- deal with the question as to the meaning of Judgment within the meaning Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal to the Bombay High Court and Sec. 10 of the Delhi High Court 1960. The word Judgment it is well-known for the purpose of Letters Pater Appeal to High Court only means an order where by right of the parties ha been decided. The said decisions, therefore, have no application whatsoever in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the fact the decision of the Supreme Court in Babulals case (supra) to some extent goes against the contention of the petitioner in as much as therein it was held that Order XLIII, Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable even in internal appeals of the High Court and the provisions of Letters Patent is not inconsistent with Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection reference may also be made to Sec. 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In order passed under Order I, Rule 10(2) is not appealable in terms of Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. So far as Civil Review No. 70/88 is concerned, as noticed herein before, prior to the order dated 25-8-1988, Civil Revision No. 1509/88 was dismissed as withdrawn. Evidently the said order cannot be reviewed by this Court as the petitioner himself had withdrawn the Civil Revision application. In that view of the matter too, in my opinion, the aforementioned Civil Review application is not maintainable. 14. Evidently the said order cannot be reviewed by this Court as the petitioner himself had withdrawn the Civil Revision application. In that view of the matter too, in my opinion, the aforementioned Civil Review application is not maintainable. 14. Before parting with the case, I must depricate the conduct of the petitioner as even in Civil Review No. 72/89 he omitted, to mention that he had preferred a Letter Patent Appeal against the order dated 20-11-1989 passed by this Court in M.A. No. 181/88. 15. Taking thus into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, both the Civil Review applications are dismissed.