ORDER This matter is listed before this Court on an objection taken by the office as to the maintainability of the present review application. 2. The arbitration application filed by the review petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 9-12-2005 and the present application is filed seeking to review the said order. However, an objection has been taken by the office as to the maintainability of the present application, since there is no specific provision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act). 3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner contended that on an earlier occasion, this Court entertained a review application in the case of Union of India v. V. Ramana Reddy1 and passed orders, and that in the light of the said judgment, in respect of other cases also, similar orders were passed. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the review application is maintainable. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, relied upon para 4 of a judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji2, wherein it was held that power of review is not an inherent power and that unless specifically provided under the statute, the authority has no power of review. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court (2 supra), unless the power of review is conferred under the statute, the Court has no power to review, and hence, the present application is not maintainable. 5. Though the learned counsel for the review petitioner placed a copy of the order of this Court passed in a review petition earlier, the aspect as to the maintainability was not considered in the said order, as no objection was raised at that point of time. However, now a specific objection has been raised by the office as well as by the respondents, Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of this Court to examine the said objection. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has fairly conceded that there is no provision under the Act. However, by referring to Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the learned counsel sought to contend that where an appeal has not been filed, a review application is maintainable. 6. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has fairly conceded that there is no provision under the Act. However, by referring to Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the learned counsel sought to contend that where an appeal has not been filed, a review application is maintainable. 6. However, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji (2 supra), a review petition is not maintainable, since there is no specific provision under the Act empowering this Court to review the orders already passed. 7. Under the above circumstances, the office objection is upheld and accordingly, the present application is dismissed as not maintainable.