ORDER : This review petition has been preferred by petitioner seeking review of judgment dated 10.8.2022 passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 5828 of 2019 whereby writ petition preferred by petitioners has been dismissed being not maintainable on the basis of pronouncement of Division Bench in LPA Nos. 182 and 183 of 2008 adjudicated on the same subject matter. 2. No notice is required to be issued to respondent No.3, whose interest is the same as of the petitioners, and thus his presence is not necessary for adjudication of matter. 3. Review petition has been filed on the ground that now in view of order dated 12th August, 2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4518 of 2016 titled The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, writ preferred by petitioners would be maintainable. 4. Judgment in CWPOA No. 5828 of 2019 was passed by this Court on 10th August 2022, whereas order of the Supreme Court, being relied upon for reviewing the judgment, has been pronounced on 12th August, 2022. 5. Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 of Civil Procedure Code reads as under:- “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.” 6. As referred by Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate, Full Bench of this High Court in case The Nalagarh Dehati Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. vs. Beli Ram etc. reported in AIR 1981 HP 1 has observed as under:- “14. However, the explanation added by Act 104 of 1976 to Rule 1 of Order XL VII has laid the controversy to rest. It came into effect on 1st February, 1977. It has given a statutory recognition to the view that reversal of the decision on a question of law by subsequent decision by a superior Court shall not be a ground for review of such judgment. It makes no distinction between the subsequent decision given by the Supreme Court or any other superior Court. It has given a statutory recognition to the view that reversal of the decision on a question of law by subsequent decision by a superior Court shall not be a ground for review of such judgment. It makes no distinction between the subsequent decision given by the Supreme Court or any other superior Court. In our opinion, therefore, a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or a larger Bench of the same court taking a contrary view on the point covered by the judgment does not amount to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.” 7. In view of aforesaid settled position and facts of the case, I do not find any merit in the review petition as the impugned judgment has been passed on the basis of material on file and law prevailing on that day and there is no error apparent on the face of record. 8. Before parting, it would be apt to record that I have not gone through ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in judgment dated 12th August, 2022 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4518 of 2016 as well as impact thereof on present matter as it is not necessary for adjudication of present review petition. Review petition is dismissed in aforesaid terms, including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.