ORDER : This revision application is directed against the ORDER :dated 28.5.1998 passed by the 3rd Addl. District Judge,-cum-Claims Tribunal, Motihari, East Champaran, in Claim Case No. 25 of 1987 whereby he has rejected the review application filed by the petitioner wherein prayer was made for review of the JUDGMENT : and Award dated 16.12.1993 passed in the aforementioned claim case. 2. It appears that the aforesaid claim case was filed by the Opposite Parties under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of compensation on account of death of late Mahesh Prasad, father and husband of the said opposite parties. It was alleged that on the relevant date the deceased was returning after attending Barat by the bus bearing Registration No. MLK 1178. The driver of the said bus was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and the vehicle met with an accident on National Highway 28-A as a result of such accident many people died including the deceased, the husband of the Opposite party no. 1. It further appears that as many as 18 cases were filed and the petitioner-Insurance Company contested all the cases and filed the original policy in one of the cases. The claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- by way of compensation. The petitioner's case is that the maximum liability of the Insurance Company in respect of series of cases restricted to Rs. 1,50,000/- and the liability of each passenger was restricted to Rs. 15,000/-. The petitioner then preferred Misc. Appeal No. 245 of 1994 before this Court against the JUDGMENT : and award passed in the aforesaid claim case. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 26.5.1995. This Court in the aforesaid JUDGMENT : held that the defence of the Insurance Company with regard to its liability cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the policy document was not brought on record. The petitioner then filed Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 577 of 1995 which was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner thereafter filed an application in the court below seeking review of the JUDGMENT : and award dated 16.12.1993 passed in the said Claim case no. 25 of 1987. The Court below after hearing the parties rejected the review petition holding that there is no merit and substance in the said petition. Hence this revision application. 3. I have heard Mr. 25 of 1987. The Court below after hearing the parties rejected the review petition holding that there is no merit and substance in the said petition. Hence this revision application. 3. I have heard Mr. Shravan Kumar, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner who has assailed the impugned ORDER :on the ground that the court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the review petition. According to the learned counsel it is a fit case in which the court below ought to have reviewed the JUDGMENT : and award. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel. In my opinion, the very review petition itself was not maintainable before the claims Tribunal. Admittedly, against the JUDGMENT : and award the petitioner-Insurance Company prefered an appeal before this court being Misc. Appeal No.245 of 1994 which was dismissed by a reasoned ORDER :. The petitioner then preferred L.P.A. before Division Bench of this court which was dismissed as not maintainable. It is, therefore, clear that the JUDGMENT : and ORDER :passed by the appellate court and the Letters Patent Appeal merged with the JUDGMENT : and award passed by the Tribunal. In such a situation, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the JUDGMENT : and award which was confirmed in appeal and the letters patent appeal. It is well settled that once JUDGMENT : and ORDER :become final in appeal or revision, then the original court has no power to review the previous ORDER :which stands merged with the ORDER :passed by this Court. In a similar situation, the apex court in the case of the State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Shri Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle (1996 (2) U.J. (S.C.) 100 observed as under : "But in this case, when the selfsame main ORDER :was confirmed by this Court, the question arises whether the Tribunal has had power under ORDER :47, Rule 1 CPC or any other appropriate provision under the Tribunals Act to review the ORDER :s passed by it and confirmed by this Court by refusing to grant leave. We find that the exercise of the review power is deleterious to the judicial discipline. Once this Court has confirmed the ORDER :passed by the Tribunal, that becomes final cannot have any power to review the previous ORDER :which stands merged with the ORDER :passed by this Court." 4. We find that the exercise of the review power is deleterious to the judicial discipline. Once this Court has confirmed the ORDER :passed by the Tribunal, that becomes final cannot have any power to review the previous ORDER :which stands merged with the ORDER :passed by this Court." 4. In a recent decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the law in the case of Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and Another vs. K. Santhakumaran and others, (1998) 7 S.C.C. 386 and observed :- "The manner in which the learned single Judge of the High Court exercised the review jurisdiction, after the special leave petitions against the selfsame ORDER :had been dismissed by this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, to say the least, was not proper. Interference by the learned Single Judge at that stage is subversive of judicial discipline. The High Court was aware that the SLPs against the ORDER :s dated 7.1.1987 had already been dismissed by this Court. The High Court, therefore, had no power or jurisdiction to review the salefsame ORDER :, which was the subject matter of challenge in the SLPs in this Court after the challenge had failed. By passing the impugned ORDER :on 7.4.1994, judicial propriety has been sacrificed. After the dismissal of the special leave petitions by this Court, on contest, no review petitions could be entertained by the High Court against the same ORDER :. The very entertainment of the review petitions, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was an affront to the ORDER :of this Court. We express our strong disapproval and hope there would be no occasion in the future when we may have to say so. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court, under the circumstances, was palpably erroneous. The respondents who approached the High Court after the dismissal of their SLPs by this Court, abused the process of the Court and indulged in vexatious litigation. We strongly deprecate the matter in which the review petitions were filed and heard in the High Court after the dismissal of the SLPs by this Court. The appeals deserve to succeed on that short ground. The appeals are consequently, allowed and the impugned ORDER :dated 7.4.1994 passed in the review petitions is hereby set aside. The respondents shall pay Rs. 10,000 as costs." 5. The appeals deserve to succeed on that short ground. The appeals are consequently, allowed and the impugned ORDER :dated 7.4.1994 passed in the review petitions is hereby set aside. The respondents shall pay Rs. 10,000 as costs." 5. Besides the above, there is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules conferring power to the Tribunal to review its own JUDGMENT : and award passed in a claim case, particularly when the JUDGMENT : and award merged with the JUDGMENT : and ORDER :passed by the appellate Court. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion, the court below rightly rejected the review petition and refused to review its own JUDGMENT : and award. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this revision application which is, accordingly, dismissed.