1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.776 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.132 OF 2001 (Saiyad Zahidali s/o. Jawarali Saiyad, Gondia .vs. Sayyad Zakirali s/o. Jawarali Sayyad, Gondia) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 23, 2011. Heard Mr.S.P.Bhandarkar, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.Sayyad Zakirali s/o. Jawarali Sayyad/respondent herein( in person). Mr.S.P.Bhandarkar, Adv. for the applicant has contended that the portion not remitted has been looked into by the Arbitrators and interest has been awarded accordingly. He further contends that, by judgment, this Court has restored paragraph 16 of the 1st Award and paragraph 5 of the second Award which is mutually inconsistent. Lastly, it is urged that deletion of paragraph 4 maintained by this Court is 2 operating to the prejudice of present applicant. Attention is invited to Civil Application No.913 of 2009 to show that the applicant has worked out his entitlement to Rs.47,26,67,521.06 ps. Mr.Bhandarkar, Adv. contends that as principal amount itself was never finalised/crystallized, grant of interest upon it is unsustainable. Mr.Sayyad Zakirali has supported the judgment of which review is sought. He points out that thereafter execution proceedings are going on and in the execution proceedings, present applicants, who are the respondents therein, are again adopting dilatory tactics. Mr.Bhandarkar, Adv. wants to show the order sheets in the execution proceedings to urge that the respondents therein have not taken recourse to any such dilatory tactics. We do not find it necessary to go into this peripheral aspect. The Court has noticed limited remand in paragraph 18 of Judgment of which review is sought and thereafter, in paragraph 20 considered paragraph 5 as also clause no.16 of restrictive Awards. This Court has then found that the Arbitrators earlier did not grant interest as they expected the parties to implement their Award immediately. After realising that the Award was not being honored 3 and the parties were unnecessarily litigating, the Arbitrators, for these reasons, found it necessary to grant interest. This Court has, after considering the relevant precedents in the matter, upheld that act of the Arbitrators. It is, therefore, obvious that the contention that clause 5 and clause 16 militate with each other is not correct. Discussion in paragraph 22 of Judgment also shows reasons for deletion of grant of Rs.50,000/- to applicant. Insofar as grant of interest is concerned, the Arbitrators were appointed by the parties and they have found it necessary to award interest. The amounts were to be ascertained by the parties as directed in that Award. This Court has made that Award Rule of the Court. All rival contentions and relevant case law has been looked into. This review application is nothing but an attempt to have re-hearing in appeal. We, therefore, find that the present Misc. Civil Application is totally misconceived. The Judgment of which review is sought has been delivered on 6th July, 2007 and the review application was then filed on 27.7.2007. It was listed before this Court only after the present respondent filed Civil Application No.913 of 2009 for directions on 9.10.2009 and this Court had adjourned the matter till 4 11.11.2009. After 11.11.2009 review application has been again listed on 22.8.2011. It appears to have been unnecessarily kept pending. As the execution proceedings filed by the present respondent are already pending, we are not inclined to pass any orders on Civil Application No.913 of 2009. This Court has not issued notice to respondent in the review petition. He has filed this application and chosen to appear voluntarily. The review is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE jais