JUDGMENT 1. - Dr. G.N. Saxena filed a Writ Petition No. 2657/1989, against the State of Rajasthan and prayed that the respondent be directed to convene D.P.C. for the posts of Z.L.O. and S.L.O. and to promote him on the said posts from the date the posts were encadred in the Service Rules of 1968. He further prayed that the respondent be directed to consider him for promotion on the post of Additional Director and in case any person is promoted as Additional Director without considering his case, such promotion may be declared to be bad and quashed with a further direction for appropriate relief in his favour. 2. That Writ Petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 9.9.1992, and the respondent was directed to determine the number of vacancies in accordance with the provisions of rule 9 of Service Rules 1963 in respect of the posts of Z.L.O. and S.L.O. within a period of one month and then to proceed forthwith to make substantive appointments first on the post of Z.L.O. and thereafter on the post of S.L.O. considering all eligible candidates including the petitioner, considering him as eligible possessing the requisite qualifications of the posts in question. 3. It was further directed that if the claim of the petitioner was accepted upon consideration in the light of the said judgment, Dr. Saxena be appointed on the said posts w.e.f. the date on which he would have been appointed, considering him eligible from the dates and years in which the vacancies arose for the respective posts and he should be given all the benefits ensured out of the said promotions including further promotion to the post of Additional Director, if any, The State Government was directed to get its exercise completed within a period of four months from the date of order. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment, the State of Rajasthan filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 630/1992, which was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 3.3.1993, and this Court directed the State Government to convene D.P.C. for the post of Z.L.O. within one month of the said order and then for S.L.O. and Additional Director. It was further directed that in case Dr. Saxena be found suitable, he should be considered for promotion in accordance with law. It was further directed that in case Dr. Saxena be found suitable, he should be considered for promotion in accordance with law. As the State of Rajasthan did not comply with the order passed by this Court, under these circumstances, Dr. Saxena fled a contempt application before this Court. Arguments were heard from time to time in that contempt application. Mr. Rastogi also made his attempts to intervene in the arguments on behalf of Dr. B.L. Gupta, but we stopped him from arguing as the contempt was against the contemners and not against Dr. Gupta. Under these circumstances, on 25.11.1993, Dr. Gupta filed the present application under Section 114 read with Order 47 C.P.C. read with Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance and read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for making Dr. Gupta as a party in the judgment dated 3.3.1993, and for reviewing the said judgment. 5. Office has raised an objection that the Review application is barred by 237 days. We have heard Mr. Rastogi on the point of limitation. He argues that in Writ Petition, Civil Procedure Code as such is not applicable. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on Hemraj v. Income Tax Recovery Officer Jodhpur, 1978 RLW 322 , Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1969 Raj. 41 , Raj Vaidhya Pt. Ram Dayalu Sharma (Since deceased represented by L.Rs. Smt. Santosh Lata Devi v. Board of Revenue, 1988 (1) RLR 1014 and Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and others, AIR 1974 SC 2105 . 6. We agree with the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicant that Civil Procedure Code as such is not applicable to Writ Petitions. 7. The Explanation to Section 141 C.P.C. excludes the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from the definition of "proceedings". 8. Mr. 6. We agree with the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicant that Civil Procedure Code as such is not applicable to Writ Petitions. 7. The Explanation to Section 141 C.P.C. excludes the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from the definition of "proceedings". 8. Mr. Rastogi further argues that this Court has ample jurisdiction to review its order under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on Shivdeo Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1963 S.C. 1909 , in which the Apex Court held as under : "There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review, which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it." 9. We are also of the view that the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own orders in view of decision of Apex Court in Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P., J.T. 1994 (1) S.C. 187 but the question in the present case is whether a review application can be entertained after a period of 237 days. Counsel for the petitioner-applicant did not cite any authority on this point. 10. Article 124 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, provides a period of thirty days for filing an application for review of a judgment by a Court other than the Supreme Court. This period starts from the date of decree/order. This article does not exclude the High Court meaning thereby that if a person feels aggrieved with the order passed by the High Court, he can file a review application within thirty days from the date of order. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that strict principles of Limitation Act are not applicable to the writ petitions, the application has been filed after a long delay without any explanation. The same deserves to be dismissed only on this ground. The applicant was aware of the order passed by this Court but he remained silent for a long time, without any reasonable explanation. It is further to be noted that the applicant was not a party before this Court either in the writ petition or in the special appeal. The same deserves to be dismissed only on this ground. The applicant was aware of the order passed by this Court but he remained silent for a long time, without any reasonable explanation. It is further to be noted that the applicant was not a party before this Court either in the writ petition or in the special appeal. We are conscious of this fact that in certain circumstances, this Court can suo moto, in exercise of inherent powers review its order even beyond time but there are no such circumstances in the present case which warrant us to exercise our inherent powers. 11. Consequently, the review application is dismissed only on the limited point that the same is beyond limitation.Review Application Dismissed. *******