1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.51 OF 2008 Satyapal S/o.Ramprakash R. Khanna .. Petitioner Versus Smt.Usha Malhotra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Owen Menezes with R.S.Tripathi i/b. P.P.Prabhu for petitioner Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with R.A.Thorat and K.P.Mali for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 29th April 2008 P.C. . This review petition is seeking review of the order dated 26th February 1281 of 2008. 2. What was under challenge before this Court was an interlocutory order dated 14th June 2 2008 delivered by the appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes, below Exh.7 and 22 in a pending appeal. 3. The original petitioner before me is aggrieved by a decree for possession and preferred an appeal. The Review Petitioner - landlord - original decree holder prayed that during the pendency of the appeal, compensation be fixed at Rs.1,52,000/- per month and upon that condition being complied with, execution and implementation of the decree for possession be stayed. 4. It is that order which was under challenge and after hearing both sides, I had directed that the tenant should pay Rs.15,000/- per month and on that condition the trial court decree would be stayed and upon compliance of the terms and conditions, appeal would be heard on merits and in accordance with law. 3 5. Now Mr.Menezes learned Counsel appearing for decree holder - landlord states that while this Court passed an order, there were certain documents which could not be pointed out despite due diligence. The have now been discovered and, therefore, the order be reviewed. My attention is invited to the review petition in that behalf. 6. The order of the lower appellate court is an interlocutory order. I modified the interlocutory order while disposing of the petition. Now, if there is some material available and the review petitioner claims that the circumstances have changed, then, nothing prevents the review petitioner from applying to the lower appellate court to modify this interim order and irrespective of the fact that the said interim order is passed by this Court, does not mean that the review petitioner is precluded from doing so. In other words, the direction of the 4 lower appellate court being modified by this Court, none the less is an interim order and direction. Therefore, nothing prevents the review petitioner from moving the appellate court with fresh application and pointing out that on account of changed circumstances, even High Court’s order and direction needs to be modified. Needless to state that if such application is made, the lower appellate court shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the fact that the applicant seeks modification of the quantum determined by this Court. Contentions of both sides in that behalf are kept open. Review petition is allowed to be withdrawn with this clarification. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)