Amitav K. Gupta,J. - (1.) This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 88 days in preferring the present review.
(2.) Heard. In view of the reasons assigned in para-3 sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made out, accordingly delay is condoned.
(3.) I.A. No.1679 of 2020 stands allowed. Civil Review No. No.17 of 2018 1. This review application has been filed for reviewing the order dated 31.08.2017, passed in M.A. No.221 of 2015, whereby interest @9% has been awarded on the compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs). 2. Learned counsel, for the petitioner, while relying on the decision in the case of Tahzhthe Purazil Sarabi and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) ACJ 2444, has submitted that 6% interest should have been awarded on the compensation amount. On the above ground, it is prayed by the learned counsel that the interest of 9% awarded by order dated 31.08.2017 in M.A. No.221 of 2015 be recalled and the rate of interest be modified to 6% per annum. 3. Heard. In terms of provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of review is very limited and such power of review must be exercised within the framework of Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. It can be exercised where there is some arithmetical or clerical mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. However, the prayer of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous, since such question can be challenged before the appellate forum. ;