(1) RA. 4425.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.4425 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2005 Ramesh S/o Manikrao Chutke .. Applicant VERSUS M/s Landmark Construction, Aurangabad .. Respondent Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the Applicant None present for the respondent though served by publication. ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 22ND JUNE, 2010 (IN CHAMBER : AT 4:30 PM.) PER COURT:- 1] Though served by publication the respondent is absent. Heard learned counsel. 2] The Review Application is filed on the ground that there is error apparent on face of record regarding the deductions which were directed by this Court but actually while passing the final order, the same were not taken into account. It appears that an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards difference of kota stones was held impermissible since it was held paid (2) RA. 4425.2008 to the respondent. It also appears that the amount of Rs.16,800/- was the only deduction permissible out of Rs.68,000/- which was taken as cost of the construction in respect of compound wall. If the observation in paragraph 17 and 18 of the judgment are considered together, instead of Rs.1,18,450/- decree only for Rs.66,650/- is required to be granted instead of Rs.79,550/- which has been allowed by this Court. The Review can be entertained when there is mis-calculation of the figures. Consequently, it would be appropriate to allow the Review Application partly to the extent of final amount of Rs.66,650/- which shall be substituted in place of Rs.79,550/-. 3] It is argued by learned counsel that rate of interest is required to be reduced in view of section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in view of the "Indian Insurance and Banking Corporation Ltd. V. Mani Paravathu (1971) 3 SCC 893". The grant of interest does not depend only on the consideration of section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Counsel relied on certain observations in "Zarir Rustom Joshi and ors. Vs. Burzor Rustom Joshi and ors. 2007(2) Bom.C.R. 610", "Nathu Yeshwantrao Bhusari since deceased by LRs. and ors. Vs. Sonabai Jagannath Ganar and ors. 1994 (2) Mh.L.J. 1829", "C.K. Sasankan Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. 2009 AIR (SCW) 5090", "Badrinarayan Bansilal Somani Vs. Vinodkumar K. Shah 2008(6) Bom.C.R. 273" and "Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. (3) RA. 4425.2008 Durga Datta (2000) 1 SCC (Cri.) 1471". Other points are not sufficient grounds to review the order. It is well settled that this Court cannot sit in appeal while exercising the review jurisdiction. 4] The Review Application is therefore partly allowed to the extent of the modification of the figure of final amount as stated above. The Review Application disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp