SANJAY Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P. K. Srivastava learned counsel for the revisionist. This revision u/s 115 CPC has been filed against the order dated 04. 02. 06 whereby the review application no. 30/74 filed in OS No. 373/99 (Modern Amenities vs. State of U. P. and others) had been dismissed by the court of A. C. M. M. IVth, Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that while deciding Issue No. 1, the trial court lost sight of the fact that the revisionist-plaintiff is admittedly a small scale industry whereupon the provisions of Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Unit Undertakings Act 1993 is applicable and hence the simple interest of 8% awarded by the trial court could not have been done whereupon he had filed the review application. According to him, the review application was maintainable inasmuch as non-consideration of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and non-grant of interest in accordance thereof was an error apparent on the face of record which could be corrected under the review jurisdiction of the trial court. He therefore, states that by rejecting the review application by the impugned order, the trial court has committed an error which requires to be set aside in this revision. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the findings given on Issue No. 1 by the trial court while finally decreeing the suit on 02. 01. 03, the trial court found that there was an admission on the part of the State-defendants regarding the supply of furniture by the revisionist to the extent of Rs. 4,05,467/ -. The finding of the trial court is that when there is an admission of amount due to the revisionist, the same required to be decreed. Insofar as the question of grant of interest on the delayed payment is concerned, the trial court considered the Act of 1993. However, in view of the averments made in the written statement clearly stating that there was no agreement between the parties with respect to either the supply of furniture or with respect to payment of any interest, it found that the revisionist-plaintiff was entitled to simple interest as is being given by the nationalized banks. It therefore awarded 8% simple interest on the delayed payment to the revisionist-plaintiff. While considering the review application, the court clearly recorded that such issue No. 1 regarding interest payable to the revisionist-plaintiff had already been decided by the trial court on its merits after taking into account the provisions of the 1993 Act and the averments of the plaint regarding applicability of the Act on the revisionist-plaintiff and the denial made by the State-defendants with respect to payment of interest. The trial court therefore found that once an issue has been decided by considering the contention of the plaintiff and the defendant, it cannot be said that there was any error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as in case the finding on Issue No. 1 made by the trial court was illegal in view of the 1993 Act, the same could be set aside by the appellate court. It was clearly of the view that in view of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the review application was not maintainable. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist as well as perused the impugned order rejecting the review application, the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are quite clear. It provides as under: - 1. Application for review of judgement - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgement to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing form a decree or order may apply for a review of judgement notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. From the aforesaid provision, it is quite clear that if there is a discovery of new or important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made or on account of the same mistake or error apparent on the face of record for sufficient reasons a review can be made of the decree. Admittedly, in the present case, the first portion is not applicable inasmuch as the Act of 1993 was clearly pleaded by the revisionist-plaintiff and has been considered by the trial court. Insofar as the mistake or error apparent on the face of record is concerned, there is a clear finding of the trial court that the parties had no agreement with respect to payment of interest at a particular rate and therefore while not giving benefit of the 1993 Act to the revisionist-plaintiff, the trial court has granted 8% simple interest. Such decision of the trial court on Issue No. 1 could be illegal or legal, but it was definitely not an error apparent on the face of record so as to entitle the plaintiff-revisionist to maintain a review application. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the review application does not suffer from any error in law or material irregularity. The revision has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. .;