1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.90 OF 2005 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.3 OF 2000 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.378 OF 1993 Shri.L.M.Devare. ...Appellant vs. 1.Bhagwan Dass Gupta & ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.S.G.Bhandary i/b. M/s.Bhandary & Bhandary, for Appellant. Mr.J.P.Sen i/b. M/s.Little & Co., for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 5th March,2009. 2 P.C.:- 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 20.6.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Review Petition no.3 of 2002. Review petition no.3 of 2002 was filed for review of the order dated 1.12.1999 passed in Company Petition no.378 of 1993. The review was particularly sought of the direction contained in paragraph 8 of that order. For the reasons that have been disclosed in paragraph 8 of the order, the respondent no.1 in Company petition no.378 of 1993 was directed to pay to petitioner no.2 the amount of interest accrued on the maturity proceeds at the stated rate of interest from 14.7.1993 to 31.7.1999. The ground of review was that though the appellant/respondent no.1 was entitled to money of Government Security from Reserve Bank of India, Reserve Bank of India did not pay the money because of some ad-interim order passed in the company petition. When the matter was argued before the learned Single Judge, the appellant/respondent 3 no.1 was not aware of that ad-interim order and therefore, the order directing the respondent no.1 to pay interest needs to be reviewed. The learned Single Judge has rejected the review application by observing that the respondent no.1 was present before the Court and he was heard before making the order, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for appellant. He submitted that the appellant-orig. Respondent no.1 was not aware of the ad-interim order passed by the Court because of which R.B.I. did not pay the amount of interest to the respondent no.1. He invited our attention to the letter at page 37. Perusal of that letter shows that RBI declined to pay interest in relation to those Government Securities not because of any interim or ad-interim order but because of pendency of the litigation. The appellant/respondent no.1 was aware that R.B.I. has not paid the amount because of the litigation and this was pointed out to the Court by appellant/respondent no.1 still the Court has made 4 the order. Obviously, therefore, even if this is an error in the order, the error is incapable of being corrected in the review petition. If according to appellant/respondent no.1, the order of the learned Single Judge was erroneous, the remedy was to file appeal against that order, instead, the review petition was filed. Even after the rejection of review petition, there is no appeal filed against the original order. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the review petition because the original order was passed in the presence of respondent no.1 i.e. appellant and after granting full opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal does not have merit, hence, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED,J.) ---