IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 917 OF 2010 IN MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 577 OF 2010 M/S. SNEHA CONSTRUCTIONS ... Applicant Versus STATE OF GOA AND ANR. ... Respondent Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 12th January, 2011 P.C.: We have heard learned Counsel appearing for parties. 2. Earlier order passed by this Court in M.C.A. No.577/2010 in F.A. No.86/2010 (Coram : D.G. Karnik & F.M. Reis, JJ.) dated 25/08/2010, is sought to be modified. Modification is nothing but the review of the order. Review is confined to Section 114 r/w Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. After hearing Counsel for the parties, in our view, order passed is reasoned. There is no apparent mistake or error on the face of the record to review order dated 25/08/2010. We are just not inclined to consider the review of the earlier order. 4. Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant makes an alternate submission. According to him, in earlier order passed on 25/08/2010, this Court has directed the applicant to redeposit entire amount together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. According to him, instead of 12% this Court should have directed interest at the rate of 8%. Modification to this extent in payment of interest is being sought in this application. Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Kamat opposes his submission. We also do not understand on what basis interest at the rate of 8% is sought to be substituted for 12% when amount invested in Nationalised Banks earn interest on cumulative basis. 5. In our opinion, earlier order was passed after hearing the Counsel present before this Court and respective parties. After that submission it goes to the merit of the matter. In review application, and/or for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court cannot sit in as an appellate Court to recall its own order. Alternate submission of the advocate Mr. Menezes also does not impress us. 6. We are therefore inclined to dismiss the review application in its totality. Civil Applicaiton for review stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. At this stage, Shri Menezes, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in case the amount ordered by order dated 25/08/2010 is not withdrawn by the applicant within one week from today, the said amount may be ordered to be invested in a Nationalised Bank in a fixed deposit. Registry is directed to act accordingly. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. F. M. REIS, J. NH