(1.) This common order disposes the question of maintainability of this First Appeal as well as this Civil Revision.
(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of the question of maintainability are in an extremely narrow compass.
(3.) Mr. A. Moulik, learned Senior Advocate of the landlord raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Appeal on the ground that since the tenant chose to file a review application after the judgment and therefore, she has waived/abandoned her right to appeal against the judgment after rejection of her Review Petition on merit. Her Review is also not maintainable in view of the bar created by Order 47, Rule 2 and this Civil Revision is also liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. To support his submissions he relied upon (i) Union of India Vs. Bharat Fire and General Insurance Ltd., New Delhi, AIR 1961 Punjab 157 (Paragraph 10) ; Sikkim Subba Associates Vs. State of Sikkim, (2001)5 SCC 629 (Paragraph 16(a)) and M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The State. of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 621 (Paragraph 6).