Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. It is inter -alia stated in the petition that when the matter was being argued on 10.02.2014 for the purpose of determination of mesne profit, the learned counsel indicated the size of shop at 20' x 30' and accordingly, the mesne profit were determined Rs. 2,500/ - per month instead of Rs. 180/ - per month. However, in fact, the size of the shop is 10'6" x 9', which is also apparent from the judgment of the trial Court and therefore, the mesne profit as determined may be suitably amended.
(2.) LEARNED counsel has supplied a copy of the review petition to the learned counsel, who appeared on 10.02.2014 in the appeal, who has put in appearance and submitted that in fact, the size of the shop is 10'6" x 9' and the mesne profit may be amended accordingly. However, a submission is made that the property is situated in busy market and therefore, even the said amount of mesne profit, which has been determined cannot be said to be excessive. In the facts and circumstances noted here -in -before, it is deemed appropriate that the review petition filed by the appellant is accepted to the limited extent that the direction in the order dt. 10.02.2014 regarding grant of mesne profit for the suit premises shall be read as Rs. 1,800/ - per month instead of Rs. 2,500/ - per month. Rest of the order would remain same and the order passed today shall form a part of the order dt. 10.02.2014. The review petition stands disposed of, accordingly.;