R. C. Lahoti ( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of RA-9/87, I. A. 674/88 and I. A. 9308/91. ( 2 ) A brief resume of facts in the background, leading to the filing and hearingof these applications is necessary. The plaintiff (who has moved these two applications) is the owner of house No. C-32, Green Park, New Delhi. He filed a suit forejectment of the defendant/non-petitioner which was dismissed by the Addl Rentcontroller, but was decreed by the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal. The order ofeviction was made on 30. 7. 81. The plaintiff got vacant possession on 27. 8. 1991. Theplaintiff then filed suit No-1676/82 seeking assessment of mesne profits for allegedunauthorised use and occupation of the premises by the defendant for the period10. 11. 1974 to 27. 8. 81 with interest and special costs. The Court framed a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit. Placing reliance on the decision of thesupreme Court in Smt Chander Kali v. Jagdish Singh Thakur, 1977 SC 2262, thiscourt by its judgment dated 8. 1. 1987 held the suit for recovery of mesne profits tobe not maintainable and directed the same to be dismissed. On 6. 2. 1987, theplaintiff filed RA 9/87 seeking review of the judgment dated 8. 1. 1987. Theapplication was defective and on being returned by the Registry, was re-filed on10. 2. 1987. It is an admitted fact that as against the judgment dated 8. 1. 87 an appealwas preferred by the plaintiff before a Division Bench of this Court, which appealwas dismissed in limine, though on merits of the case. ( 3 ) IT appears that this Court entertained some doubt about the maintainabilityof the application for review. Having become aware of the same, the plaintiffmoved I. A. 9308/91 referring to Rule 2 Chapter II of Delhi High Court Rules (Original Side) and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code requiring the following questions to bereferred to Hon ble the Chief Justice for favour of constituting a Division Bench todecide the same: (A) whether decree of the appellate order dated 18. 8. 87 is required to beprepared? (b) In case this question is answered in the affirmative the objection of thelearned Assistant Registrar is eironeous and decree for the appellateorder dated 18. 8. 87 will have to be prepared. 8. 87 is required to beprepared? (b) In case this question is answered in the affirmative the objection of thelearned Assistant Registrar is eironeous and decree for the appellateorder dated 18. 8. 87 will have to be prepared. (c) In case the question in sub-para (a) is answered in the negative, thehon ble Trial Court will be free to review its own order and decreedated 17. 1. 1987 dismissing the main suit as per the case law reportedin AIR 1952 Bombay 165 Note (c) and AIR 1986 SC 1780 . Here itself it may be noted that cause title part of IA 9308/91 makes a reference toi. A. 674/88. This application-also was filed by the plaintiff on 16. 1. 1988, whereinhe had sought for the restoration of RA 9/87, which was dismissed in default ofappearance at one point of time, as also reference of the above said questions fordecision by a Division Bench. The review petition RA 9/87 has been restored forhearing and thus in substance I. A. 674/88 (remaining part thereof) and I. A. 9308/91 seek an identical relief. ( 4 ) I. A. 9308/91 was placed before Hon ble the Chief Justice. His Lordship hasvide order dated 10. 12. 1991 directed the application to be listed for hearing beforethe Judge hearing the review application. ( 5 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, the review is being sought for under Clause (a) of sub ruled)of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC, which contemplates a review application beingpreferred by an aggrieved person against a decree or order from which an appealis allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred. The judgment dated8. 1. 1987 was an appealable one and, as already stated, it is an admitted fact that anappeal was preferred against this judgment which has been dismissed summarilyas the appeal was not found worth being admitted for hearing after notice to theother side. The petitioner submits that the review application was filed before thefiling of the appeal and as such review was competent on the date on which it waspreferred. He further submits that summary dismissal of the appeal does notamount to a decree and as decree was also not drawn up in fact, merely because anappeal has been dismissed hearing of the review application on merits is notbarred. The contention merits an instantaneous dismissal in view of the law laiddown by the Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. The contention merits an instantaneous dismissal in view of the law laiddown by the Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhrapradesh, 1964 S. C. 1372. Vide para 8, their Lordships have observed : "the crucial date for determining whether or not the terms of Order XLVIIRule 1 (1) are satisfied is the date when the application for review is filed. If onthat date no appeal has been filed it is competent for the Court hearing thepetition for review to dispose of the application on the merits notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, subject only to this, that if before theapplication for review is finally decided the appeal itself has been disposedof, the jurisdiction of the Court hearing the review petition would come to anend. " ( 6 ) THE review application was competent when it was filed as having beenfiled before the filing of the appeal. The review application could have been heardand disposed of on merits without regard to the pendency of the appeal so long asthe appeal was not decided, but once the appeal has been decided leading to theconfirmation of the impugned judgment by the Court of appeal, the jurisdiction tohear the review application is lost. It would not make any difference if the decisionin appeal was summary, provided that it was on merits. It is also immaterialwhether a decree has been drawn up or not by the Appellate Court. Shiva Parsa v. Ramchandra Narasinha, AIR 1922 Bombay 130, Sheo Balak Singh v. Mahabirsingh, AIR 1931 Allahabad 704 (DB) and Chander Kanta v. Lakshman, AIR 1917calcutta 417 also support the proposition that dismissal of the appeal under Order41 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code excludes the jurisdiction of the original Court to hear the reviewapplication against the judgment forming subject matter of appeal. RA 9/87cannot, therefore be heard and disposed of on merits. ( 7 ) THE position of law being clear and well settled the questions of lawsuggested by the petitioner in his applications I. A. 674/88 and 9308/91 do not raiseany question which may be complicated or be of such importance or frequentrecurrence as may call for adjudication by a Division Bench. It is not necessary torefer the questions for decision by a Division Bench. ( 8 ) FOR the forgoing reasons RA 9/87, IA 674/88 and IA 9308/91 are all rejected.