Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This Civil Revision application arises out of an order, dated 18-1-1991 passed by District Judge, at Chaibasa in T. A. No.45 of 19io whereby and wbereunder the said learned Court held that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner in the court of Munsif at Chaibasa being Eviction Suit No.15 of 1989. The said Eviction Suit No.15 of 1989 was decreed by a judgment dated 20th april, 1990. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal as against the said judgment and decree in the court of District Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa which was registered as Eviction Appeal No.5 of 1990. 5. However, the petitioner withdraw the said appeal unconditionally as is evident from the order dated 16-9-1990 passed by the District Judge, singbbhum at Chaibasa in the aforementioned Eviction Appeal No.5/90. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application purported to be under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the court of munsif of Chaibasa. 7. The said application for review was registered as Misc. Review case No.60 of 1990. By reason of an order, dated 12-11-1990 as contained in Annexure-D to the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite-party, the said application was dismissed. 8. It appears that in the meantime, the plaintiff-opposite-party levied an execution case which was registered as Execution Case No.11 of 1990. In that execution case the petitioner filed an objection under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said objection was also dismissed by an order dated 20th September, 1990. 9. The petitioner preferred a Misc. Appeal in the Court of District judge, Chaibasa against the said order which was registered as Misc. Appeal no.32 of 1991. By an order, dated 3-1-1991, the learned District Judge permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said appeal. 10. It appears that the petitioner has also filed a revision application before this court against the aforementioned order, dated 12-11-1990 passed in Misc. Review No.16 of 1990 being C. R. No.345 of 1990 (R ). It is admitted that the said revision petition was also dismissed by this court. 11. 10. It appears that the petitioner has also filed a revision application before this court against the aforementioned order, dated 12-11-1990 passed in Misc. Review No.16 of 1990 being C. R. No.345 of 1990 (R ). It is admitted that the said revision petition was also dismissed by this court. 11. The petitioner thereafter preferred another appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the aforementioned Eviction Suit No.15 of 1989 which was registered as T. A. No.45 of 1990. 12. By reason of the impugned order, dated 18-1-1991, the 1 arned court below dismissed the said appeal on two grounds viz : (a) In view of withdrawal of Eviction Appeal No.5 of 1990 no appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Eviction Suit No.15 of 1989 is maintainable. (b) The appeal is barred by limitation, and the grounds for condona-tion of delay taken by the appellant does not appear reasonable and acceptable. 13. Mr. Das who has appeared in person and has argued the case ably, submitted that he had to withdraw the earlier Eviction Appeal No.5 of 1990 on a wrong legal advice. He, therefore, submitted that withdrawl of the earlier appeal will not stand in the way of maintainability of the aforementioned Eviction Appeal No.45 of 1990. 14. With regard to the Second ground, the petitioner submitted that as he was pursuing the aforementioned Misc. Review Case No.16 of 1990 in the court of Munsif at Chaibasa and preferred a civil revision application in this court against the aforementioned order, dated 12-11-1990 passed therein being Civil Revision No.545 of 1990 (R), the period which was taken in prosecuting the said proceedings should have been excluded in computing the period of limitation. The petitioner submitted that in any event the prosecution of a proceeding before a wrong forum was a sufficient cause for condonation of delay within the meaning of Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 15. Mr. C. P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite-party, on the other hand, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this civil revision is not maintainable as the aforementioned Eviction Appeal No.45 of 1990 itself was not maintainable. 16. 15. Mr. C. P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite-party, on the other hand, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this civil revision is not maintainable as the aforementioned Eviction Appeal No.45 of 1990 itself was not maintainable. 16. In terms of sub-section 2 of Sec.107 of the Code of Civil procedure, the appellate court shall have the same power as is required to be performed and as nearly the same duties as are conferred and imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure on courts of original jurisdiction in respect of the suits instituted therein. 17. In terms of Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if a suit is withdrawn without obtaining the permission referred to in sub-rule 3 thereof, the plaintiff will be precluded frme instituting a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim. Order xxiii. Rule 1 although in terms way not be applicable with regard to the withdrawal of appeal but the principles analogous thereto shall be applicable. 18. In view of the unconditional withdrawal of the aforementioned eviction Appeal No.5 of 1990 the petitioner has disentitled himself from preferring another appeal as agamst the same judgment and decree. 19. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that any person considering himself aggrieved may file an application for review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order if no appeal has been preferred by him. 20. It is, therefore, clear from the aforementioned provision that an application for review will be maintainable only when no appeal was preferred from the decree, sought to be reviewed. As the petitioner withdrew the appeal, the review application filed by him could be entertained by the trial court. 21. Once a review application was filed and an order refusing to review the order was passed therein by the trial court in terms of Order XLVII, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the remedy of the petitioner lay in filing a restoration of review application, as provided for under Order xlvii, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 22. The petitioner admittedly, came before this Court in revision against the order rejecting his application for review being Civil Revision no.545 of 1990 (R) which as noticed hereinbefore, was also dismissed. 23. 22. The petitioner admittedly, came before this Court in revision against the order rejecting his application for review being Civil Revision no.545 of 1990 (R) which as noticed hereinbefore, was also dismissed. 23. According to the petitioner the order rejecting the aforementioned revision application beirg Civil Revision No.545 of 1990 (R) was erroneous. 24. I am afraid such a question cannot be raised in this civil revision application. Thus the petitioner having availed a remedy of review and his application for review having been rejected and further in view of the fact that the civil revision application filed by him against the said order having also been dismissed, in my opinion, the learned court of appeal below has rightly held that as the Eviction Appeal No.45 of 1990 was not maintainable. 25. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be interfered with in this civil revision application. This application is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.