Order : The instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, in I.A.No.276 of 2015 in O.S.No.155 of 2013. 2. The brief facts of the matter are that the present petitioners, being plaintiffs, filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondent/defendant. The suit was dismissed on contest. Against such order of dismissal, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application for review under Section 114 r/w Order XLVII, R.1 r/w 151 of CPC on the ground that the decision passed by the learned Civil Judge concerned in the suit can be reviewed by virtue of the earlier litigation between the parties. The learned Court below, by passing the impugned order, has dismissed application for review. Hence, this Civil Revision Application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties was settled by virtue of earlier suit being O.S.No.646 of 2010, which was affirmed after appeal being A.S.No.157 of 2012. He further submits that the present petitioners being the plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery towards the earlier rent with interest due from the defendant for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. The earlier suit was filed in respect of the recovery for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. He further submits that the relation between the parties and remittance of rent between the parties were admitted and that the enhanced rent due to letting out of the tobacco bar to third parties was also admitted. Thus, the decree passed by the learned Court below requires to be reviewed. He submits that the learned Court below has erroneously dismissed application for review and prays that the matter be remanded to the learned Court below for proper decision. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 raised the point of maintainability of the instant review application by virtue of a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS Vs. ASHIYAL BEEVI arising out of SLP (C) No.8428 of 2018 . He submits that a revision application against dismissal of review application is not at all maintainable. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 raised the point of maintainability of the instant review application by virtue of a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS Vs. ASHIYAL BEEVI arising out of SLP (C) No.8428 of 2018 . He submits that a revision application against dismissal of review application is not at all maintainable. He clarified that if, by the strength of civil revisional jurisdiction, a High Court passes an order regarding reviewing a decree, thereby modifying the earlier decree passed by the Court below, the party affected by such decree would have a right of appeal, but such right would be seriously prejudiced by the order of the Revisional Court. He placed on record paragraphs 24 to 28 of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. “24. What is clear from the above observations is, that where the review is allowed and the decree/order under review is reversed or modified, such an order shall then be a composite order whereby the court not only vacates the earlier decree or order but simultaneous with such vacation of the earlier decree or order, passes another decree or order or modifies the one made earlier. The decree so vacated, reversed or modified is then the decree that is effective for the purposes of a further appeal, if any, maintainable under law. But where the review petition is dismissed, there is no question of any merger and anyone aggrieved by the decree or order of the Tribunal or Court shall have to challenge within the time stipulated by law, the original decree and not the order dismissing the review petition. Time taken by a party in diligently pursuing the remedy by way of review may in appropriate cases be excluded from consideration while condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation would not imply that there is a merger of the original decree and the order dismissing the review petition. 25. Apart from above, there is another reason also for a revisional court not to entertain a revision against an order rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree, which is, if the revisional court sets aside or modifies or alters a trial court's decree, the decree of the trial court would merge in the one passed by the revisional court. In consequence, the right of the party aggrieved by the trial court's decree to file an appeal would get affected. Further, there may be a case where a person is aggrieved by a finding of the trial court on any issue, even though the trial court's decree may be in its favour. In that scenario, if there is an appeal by a party aggrieved by the decree, that person would have a right to take an objection against the adverse finding with the aid of the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 22 of the CPC, but in the event of there being no appeal against the decree, such a person would lose its right to take an objection, under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the CPC, against that adverse finding. 26. No doubt revisional powers may be available on limited grounds, primarily to correct jurisdictional errors, but still it is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. In Shankar Ramchandra (supra), this Court observed: "6. Now when the aid of the High Court is invoked on the revisional side it is done because it is a superior court and it can interfere for the purpose of rectifying the error of the court below. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. It is only one of the modes of exercising power conferred by the statute; basically and fundamentally it is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court which is being invoked and exercised in a wider and larger sense. We do not, therefore, consider that the principle of merger of orders of inferior courts in those of superior Courts would be affected or would become inapplicable by making a distinction between a petition for revision and an appeal."(Emphasis supplied) 27. In the instant case, the trial court, which had jurisdiction to allow or dismiss the review application, dismissed the review application on merits. If it had granted the review, the aggrieved party would have had a right to file an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (w) read with Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC. In the instant case, the trial court, which had jurisdiction to allow or dismiss the review application, dismissed the review application on merits. If it had granted the review, the aggrieved party would have had a right to file an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (w) read with Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC. And if it had allowed the review and simultaneously altered/modified/reversed the decree, the aggrieved party would have had a right to file an appeal against the said decree. But, if the revisional court does the same, as has been done by the High Court while passing the impugned order, anomalous situation would arise. The decree passed by the trial court would stand modified by the High Court. Therefore, if the defendant(s) against whom the decree is passed were to challenge the same, they would be at a disadvantage on account of the merger. Whereas, from the stand point of the plaintiff-respondent, even if we assume that the trial court's decree is inconsistent with its finding on the validity of the gift in favour of Khaja Mohideen, she can challenge the same in an appeal against the decree even after rejection of the review application. In the event of such an appeal by the plaintiff, the defendant(s), even if they had themselves not filed an appeal against the trial court's decree, would have a right to take objection to the adverse finding(s) under Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC. However, if the revisional court's order is allowed to stand, owing to modification of the decree by the revisional court, to which in normal course an appeal would lie, the right of an appeal to the aggrieved party would get seriously prejudiced. 28. For all the reasons above, we are of the considered view that where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained under Section 115 of the CPC against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree. The proper remedy for the party whose application for review of an appealable decree has been rejected on merits is to file an appeal against that decree and if, in the meantime, the appeal is rendered barred by time, the time spent in diligently pursuing the review application can be condoned by the Court to which an appeal is filed.” 5. Perused the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Perused the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has time and again observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that no revision should be entertained under Section 115 of CPC against the order rejecting on merits a review of the decree. The proper remedy for the parties whose application for review of an appealable decree has been rejected on merits is to file an appeal against the decree and it will unless appeal is rendered barred by time. The time spent in deligently perusing the review application can be condoned by the Court before which the appeal is filed. Perused the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. It appears that the instant civil revision application has been filed against rejection of a review application filed under Section 115 CPC against a decree passed by a Court and, according to the view of the Supreme Court, the instant revision is not at all maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the instant Civil Revision Petition being the same is hereby dismissed. The petitioners are at leave to file an appeal against the decree and order passed by the learned Court below within six (06) weeks from the date of publication of this order. If such appeal is preferred within stipulated time, the delay in preferring the appeal shall be condoned by the Court to which the appeal has been preferred, according to the provisions under Section 14 of the CPC. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.