Judgment :- Srinivasan, J. This is a petition for modification of the order dated 26. 1993 passed by us in C.M.P.No.5594 of 1993 directing the petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000 to the respondents herein on or before 23rd July, 1993. Though the petition purports to be one for modification, in law it is only for review of our order dated 26. 1993. In fact, the petition as filed by the counsel was originally one for review and it is represented that at the instance of the registry, the word “review” has been struck off and the word ‘modification’ has been substituted. 2. The ground on which this petition has been filed is that at the time when we heard C.M.P.No.5594 of 1993, it was not brought to our notice that a sum of Rs. 51,59,416.55 would be due from the respondents herein to the petitioners and that the liability was also found by the Commissioner appointed by this Court during the pendency of the appeal by an order in CMP.No.17182 of 1988 in L.P.A.No.192 of 1988. It is stated that late Pravinlal Madhvani was liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,13,463.24 to the petitioners and the said amount has swelled into Rs.51,59,416.55 on account of interest with quarterly rest thereon. It is further stated that the amount due in favour of the petitioners even as per the report of the Commission would be only Rs.33,32,847.83 and the interest thereon would come to Rs.25,13,618.58, making a total of Rs.58,46,4641. Thus, it is contended that if the said fact had been brought to the notice of this Court on 26. 1993, the order directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000 would not have been made. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice that the said amount of Rs.4,13,463.24 which was due by Pravinlal Madhvani had already been adjusted as against the amount due from the firm to Pravinlal Madhvani and the lower court has taken into account the said fact while rendering its judgment on 1. 1988. The following paragraph in the judgment is referred to: “The profit till 5. 1969 is shown as Rs. 31,360.10 paise in Ex.B-12 and the profit from 5. 1969 to 30.6.1969is shown as Rs.93,725.88 paise for a small period of 1 month and 27 days between 5. 1988. The following paragraph in the judgment is referred to: “The profit till 5. 1969 is shown as Rs. 31,360.10 paise in Ex.B-12 and the profit from 5. 1969 to 30.6.1969is shown as Rs.93,725.88 paise for a small period of 1 month and 27 days between 5. 1969and 30.6.1969 has been inflated by the respondents to take away the balance of the profit beyond 5. 1969. The petitioner is entitled to pro-rata profit of Rs.23,102. She is entitled to 30% of receivables. Her 30% of receivables works out at Rs.1,25,306.34 the balance in the current account of her husband is Rs.3,870. The profit actually credited in balance sheet of 5. 1969 is Rs.9,489. Her claim of Income Tax and Agricultural Income Tax refunds is Rs.10,575. She is entitled to he share of standing crops of Rs. 17,511.30 and goodwill Rs.3,45,1334. She is entitled to the total of these items of Rs.5,34,9994. Para 57 Late Pravinlal was the sole proprietor of M/s.Darjeeling Tea Plantations Company. Late Pravinlal owed Rs.4,13,364.24 paise as on 5. 1969 to Bengorm Estate. The 6th Respondent obtained the Reserve Bank permission Ex.B-566 and adjusted the debt due from Darjeeling Tea Plantation to Bengorm on 26. 1972. The debt due from Darjeeling Tea Plantation has been adjusted as on 5. 1969 as per the admission of R.W.3, The petitioner has to pay Rs.20,996 to the firm towards payments made on behalf of Late Pravinlal for Income Tax and Agricultural Tax and the 30% of Rs.1,11,741.10 at the total tax paid on behalf of Bengorm Estate which works out to Rs.33,5533. The debt due from Darjeeling Tea Plantation to Bengorm firm of Rs.4,13,364.24 Income Tax and Agricultural Tax Rs.20,996 and 30% of Rs.1,11,741.10 of total tax paid on behalf of firm work out to Rs.33,5535. Total of these items is Rs.4,67,8852. After deducting this amount from Rs.5,34,993.94 she is entitled to Rs.67,137. So the petitioner is entitled to Rs.67,111.37 with simple interest at 6% per annum from 5. 1969 to the date of realisation.” 4. It is submitted that the Commissioner was directed by this Court to ascertain the mesne profits only from 5. 1969 and not to ascertain the liability during the prior period. So the petitioner is entitled to Rs.67,111.37 with simple interest at 6% per annum from 5. 1969 to the date of realisation.” 4. It is submitted that the Commissioner was directed by this Court to ascertain the mesne profits only from 5. 1969 and not to ascertain the liability during the prior period. It is, therefore, argued that the alleged liability of Pravinlal Madhvani having been already taken into account and the court having found that only a sum of Rs.67,111.37 was due from the petitioners herein to respondents, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the liability is still alive and it has swelled into a sum of Rs.51,00,000 and odd. 5. The said question as to whether the liability is still alive or not has to be decided only in the appeal. It is not possible for us to decide that question at this stage. .6. Whatever may be the liability of Pravinlal Madhvani, it is not in dispute that the Court below has passed a decree as against the petitioners for a sum of Rs.25,00,000 and odd. It is represented that as per the decree, the amount due as on date inclusive of interest would be more than Rs. 88,00,000 and odd. It is also submitted by the respondents that as per the Commissioner’s report, the petitioners are liable to pay Rs.33,00,000 and odd and with interest, and it would come to more than Rs. 1,00,00,000. We took into account the fact that in so far as the decree in the suit is one for payment of money and the petitioners cannot have unconditional stay particularly when the appeal is pending for several years. No doubt, the court had earlier granted unconditional stay and the Letters Patent Appeal against the same has been dismissed. But, when the miscellaneous petition was disposed by the Division Bench, on 14. 1989, in CM.P.No. 17182 of 1988 in L.P.A.No. 192 of 1988 the Bench directed the petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000 to the respondents herein in two instalments, the first instalment on 7. 1989 and the balance by 312. 1989. Admittedly, the said amount has not been paid by the petitioners to the respondents till now. Further, the Supreme Court of India had in its order dated 11. 1989 and the balance by 312. 1989. Admittedly, the said amount has not been paid by the petitioners to the respondents till now. Further, the Supreme Court of India had in its order dated 11. 1991 directed the appeal to be disposed of within four weeks from the receipt of the said order. It was also observed by that court that if the appeal could not be disposed of within that time, the High Court might consider an application of the petitioners for an increased deposit and withdrawal. We have referred to the said order in our order dated 26. 1993. It is only after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, we directed the petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000 to the respondents on or before 27. 1993. Without making any arrangements to pay the amount or even a part thereof the petitioners have come forward with this application for modification, which is in effect for review. The application was presented only on 20.7.1993. It is also stated in the affidavit that this is the harvest season the estate requires a lot of working capital at this stage and it would be hard and impossible to raise 20 lakhs of cash all of a sudden within a short time. An averment is made in the affidavit that the petitioners would furnish bank guarantee to the amount of Rs.20,00,000. We are not convinced that the affidavit represents the true state of affairs. It should be noted that the petitioners did not file any counter affidavit in CM.P.No.5594 of 1993, though the said petition was filed as early as on 4. 1993. The petition came up for orders only on 26. 1993 before us and the petitioners herein had more than two months’ time to file their counter. The petitioners have failed to do so. It is not now open to the petitioners to contend in this petition that this being harvest season, i is not possible for them to collect a sum of Rs.20,00,000 within a short time. .7. The Supreme Court has in Collector of 24 Par-ganas v. Lalith Mohan Mullick, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2121: (1988)1 J.T. 598 , held that a new ground which was not raised in the earlier occasion cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of review application. .7. The Supreme Court has in Collector of 24 Par-ganas v. Lalith Mohan Mullick, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2121: (1988)1 J.T. 598 , held that a new ground which was not raised in the earlier occasion cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of review application. In this case, the present ground was not raised and no counter affidavit was filed on the earlier occasion. 8. Hence, there is no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 9. However, we consider it fit to grant time to the petitioners to comply with the order dated 26. 1993. The petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs only) to the respondents herein on or before 8. 1993, failing which the petitioners will be considered to have wilfully disobeyed our order. 10. Yesterday on a request by senior counsel for the petitioners, we directed the appeal to be posted in the next week for Hearing. Instead, we direct the appeal to be posted for final disposal on 8. 1993.