Judgment (Oral) Since both the petitions were decided by the common judgment a review petitions have been filed against the common judgment, hence, both the review petitions are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we are narrating the facts of WPMS No. 135 of 2006. 2. The review petition has been filed with the prayer to review the order dated 15.02.2014 passed by learned single Judge of this Court. The writ petitions arise out of consolidation proceedings and the petitioner, which is "The Sunni Central Board of Waqf'', had challenged the order dated 11.03.1985 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition was dismissed after hearing all the parties by a learned single Judge. The petitioner did not choose to file a review petition immediately but tried his luck before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (in short "SLP''). In the said SLP, the Hon'ble Apex Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents, dismissed the SLP vide order dated 06.09.2014 by passing following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. No ground for interference is made out to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is dismissed." 3. Thereafter a review petition was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2014 by passing following order: "We have perused the review petition and the connected papers. We do not find any error in the order impugned, much less an apparent error on the face of the record, so as to call for its review. The review petition is dismissed accordingly." 4. Having failed till the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner has now moved a belated review petition before this Court, which is delayed by 299 days. It is, however, accompanied by delay condonation application. 5. Purely in the interest of justice the delay in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the review petition and perused the record. 7. Preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. It is, however, accompanied by delay condonation application. 5. Purely in the interest of justice the delay in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the review petition and perused the record. 7. Preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Lok Pal Singh that the review petition is not maintainable before this Court, as the order dated 15.02.2014 of this Court already stands merged with the order dated 06.09.2014 passed in the SLP (referred above). He has also cited various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in order to strengthen his argument. He would argue that once a writ petition has been dismissed and a SLP against the said order has also been dismissed, it is not open for the petitioner to file review petition before this Court against the order of this Court (High Court). He would also argue that it would have been a different case had the petitioner filed a review petition immediately after dismissal of the writ petition though even during the pendency of the SLP, but since factually this is not the case, the review petition is not maintainable. In order to strengthen his argument he has relied upon following rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- 1. Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm And Another Vs. K. Santhakumaran And Others reported in (1998) 7 SCC 386 . 2. K. Rajamouli Vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy reported in (2001) 5 SCC 37 . 3. Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese And Iron Ores Limited And Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337 . 8. The learned counsel for the review petitioner Mr. Barthwal on the other hand argues that a review petition is still maintainable and has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in (2011) 4 SCC 602 . 9. Under the present facts, even the decision relied upon by the petitioner (for the maintainability of review petition), does not help him, as in the decision cited by the petitioner (Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in (2011) 4 SCC 602 . 9. Under the present facts, even the decision relied upon by the petitioner (for the maintainability of review petition), does not help him, as in the decision cited by the petitioner (Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another) it has been said that even after a dismissal of a case by the High Court and thereafter dismissal of the SLP a review petition would still be maintainable, in case the order in the SLP does not give any reasons. A remedy under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is discretionary remedy and SLP can be dismissed for a variety of reasons, not necessarily on merits, and therefore, in a case where the SLP has been dismissed (as was the case before Hon'ble Apex Court) without assigning reasons such as by stating that "Special Leave Petition is dismissed", this would not be a bar in filing review petition. However, in the same judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court further states that where reasons have been assigned for dismissing a SLP, no matter how meager the reasons would be, the order of High Court stand merged and review petition cannot be filed before High Court. A reference elaborated in paragraph 6 of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in (2011) 4 SCC 602 which reads as under: "When this Court dismisses a special leave petition by giving some reasons, however meager (it can be even of just one sentence), there will be a merger of the judgment of the High Court into the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the special leave petition. According to the doctrine of merger, the judgment of the lower court merges into the judgment of the higher court. Hence, if some reasons, however meager, are given by this Court while dismissing the special leave petition, then by the doctrine of merger, the judgment of the High Court merges into the judgment of this Court and after merger there is no judgment of the High Court. Hence, obviously, there can be no review of a judgment which does not even exist." 10. Hence, obviously, there can be no review of a judgment which does not even exist." 10. In the present case the SLP has been dismissed on the grounds that no ground is made out, thereafter the review petition was also made before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 19.11.2014 (referred above). Reasons have been assigned. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has elaborated on the Doctrine of merger and has held that the dismissal of SLP with a non-speaking held not constitute res judicata and does not culminate in merger of the impugned decision. However, the facts of the above case are not applicable in the present matter. 12. Even assuming that reasons have not been assigned by the Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the SLP and there is no merger, yet no interference is called for in the present review petitions for two reasons, firstly, even a review against that order of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court itself and secondly, the scope of interference in the review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. extremely limited. 13. In any case, the review petitioner has not been able to show to this court, as to what was the error apparent on the face of the record or what were the constrains before it for not placing before this Court the factual and legal position, which he now wants to place before this Court. There must be an end to all litigations. Not only the review petitions are not maintainable but considering the overall scope of review itself no interference is presently called for in these review petitions. 14. Accordingly, both the review petitions are dismissed.