JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This petition is filed against order dated 7.9.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, in Misc. Application No. 117 of 2005, vide which the review application, filed by respondent No. 1, was allowed during the pendency of appeal, filed by respondent No. 1. The only question raised in this petition is as to whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to review its order during the pendency of the appeal or in other words whether the Insurance company was competent to file application for review when it had already filed the appeal before this Court? 2. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which reads as under:- "1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation - The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 3. Explanation - The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court, first; in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sobina Iakai and Others (2007) 7 SCC 786 , "and the other; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 581 ". 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examine the record with their able assistance. 5. The issue involved in this case is very simple that a review application has been filed at the instance of the Insurance company during the pendency of the first appeal in this Court. A bare reading of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC would show that the review application can only be filed if no appeal is filed against the impugned order, even if the law provides for filing of an appeal. 6. In the present case also, the law provides for filing of an appeal against the award of the Tribunal before this Court but respondent No. 1 had to make a choice either to file appeal or review. They could have definitely filed a review application before filing the appeal. But once they have filed the appeal, which was also pending, the review application filed by them before the Tribunal, was not maintainable. 7. In so far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, in both the judgments, the issue involved is not the one which is being decided in this case. What is said in the aforesaid judgments is that in case of any fraud, review is maintainable. 8. As I have already observed that the issue involved in this case is about the competence of the Insurance company to maintain the review application in the face of the appeal pending in this Court. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 7.9.2005, passed by the Tribunal, is set aside.