This review application has been preferred under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the judgment and order dated 25.9.92 passed in Civil Revision No. 335 of 1988. 2.The respondent opposite Party has raised point of maintainability of review application on the ground that in view of filling the special leave petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the review application filled subsequently is not maintainable Order 47 Rule 1 (1) (a) CPC 3. The admitted position is that on 25.9.92 after this Delivery of the judgment in the said civil revision, Mr. PK Das, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent prayed under Article 133, for leave to appeal before the Apex Court which was rejected. The review applicant (respondent) Special Leave Petition on 19.10.92 before the Supreme Court and filed application before this Court on 26 10.92. 4. Order 47 Rule 1 (1) (a) of the CPC permits an application for being filed ''from a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred.” From reading of the mandatory provision of the Rule, it is clear that a review application should be filed before the appeal is lodged. If it is presented before the appeal is preferred, Court has jurisdiction to maintain and hear it in spite of the pendency of the appeal which is filed after the filing of the review application. This find support in a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1964 SC 1372 ) the Apex Court held that :- "The crucial date for determining whether or not the terms of O XLVII R. 1 (1) are satisfied is the date when the application for review is filed. If on that date no appeal has been filed it is competent for .the Court hearing the petition for review to dispose of the application on the merites notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, subject only to this, that if before the application for review is finally decided the appeal itself has been disposed of, the jurisdiction of the Court hearing the review petition would come to an end;" 5. In view of this decision I find no support in the submission of Mr. In view of this decision I find no support in the submission of Mr. RB Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant that review application could not be preferred before the filing of the Special Leave Petition on the that the High Court was closed for Puja Vacation and on: the first day of re-opening, review application had been filed. 6. Mr. Sarma has further submitted that Court should consider the hardship of the review applicant and could maintain and hear the review application invoking the inherent power of the Court. In support of submission he referred AR Antulay's case [ (1988) 2 SCC 602 }. Scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. reviewing Court has limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definite limits fixed by the language used in Order 47 Rule 1. Order 47 Rule 1 (1) (c), the mandatory provisions prohibits to entertain review application which filed after prefering of the appeal. 7. In Shamalbhai Lillubhai patel vs. Additional Special Land Acquistion Officer ( AIR 1977 SC 899 ) wherein the appellant filed a review petition the decision of the Rajasthan Govt. to charge rayalty which was dismissed by the Central Govt. The writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that it involved determination of disputed question of fact. In appeal notice was brought before the Apex Court that after dismissal of the writ petition the appellant preferred a suit in which he has agitated the same question which was the subject matter of the writ petition wherein it was held that: "The appellant cannot persue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time." 8. In view of ray above discussion the review application is dismissed. No cost. The status quo order passed on 13.11.92 is vacated.