ORDER : S.D. PANDIT, J. 1. This application is filed by the company which is the subject-matter of company petition no. 93 of 1993. The company petition no. 93 of 1993 was brought by respondent No.1. i.e. Gujarat Lease Finance Ltd. seeking an order to wind up the applicant company. Said company petition no. 93 of 1993 is allowed by me by the order dated 12-12-1997 and the present application is filed to review the said order. The applicant is seeking to reviews my order on the following grounds : (1) That there is no compliance of the statutory provisions of rule 24(2) of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959, as notice of advertisement of the petition was not published in the Official Gazette. That the court had no jurisdiction to dispense with the publication of advertisement in Official Gazette. (2) That said company petition no. 93 of 1993 was once dismissed for want of prosecution and there is no provision of restoration of the said petition. (3) That the order of restoration was passed on 27-8-1996 and that on that day, the respondent's debt had become time barred and consequently there was no justification for passing the order in question. (4) That the assets of the applicant company are more than sufficient to cover up the existing debt and therefore, there was no justification for passing the order of winding up. 2. At the outset it must be stated that present application is a review application. It is settled law that the Court can review its order if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of record. A review application could not be the proceedings for re-appreciation of the material and evidence on record. 3. In the instant case, the order of admission of the petition is passed on 29-3-1994 and thereafter the petition was advertised in local Gujarati daily Sandesh and English daily Indian Express both of Baroda editions. Present applicant had not put in its appearance. When initially the petition was filed, notice for admission was issued. Even after the publication of admission notice, present applicant has not put in any appearance and has not filed any affidavit in reply opposing the admission or allowing of the petition. Thus there is no material to contradict the averments made by the petitioner in the original petition. When initially the petition was filed, notice for admission was issued. Even after the publication of admission notice, present applicant has not put in any appearance and has not filed any affidavit in reply opposing the admission or allowing of the petition. Thus there is no material to contradict the averments made by the petitioner in the original petition. Therefore, in that background, the controversy in question will have to be considered and decided. No doubt, in my order dated 12-12-1997 in para 2 in lines 6 and 7 the following words are appearing 'as well as in Official Gazette' similarly in para 3 in he No. 2, same words viz 'as well as in Government Gazette' are appearing. It is an admitted fact that when the order of admission of company petition was passed on 29-3-1994, it has been clearly mentioned that publication of notice in the Official Gazette is dispensed with and admittedly there is no publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. Therefore, in the circumstances, the appearance of the above words 'as well as in Official Gazette' in para 2 and 'as well as in Government Gazette' in para 3 is incorrect and there is obviously an error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, in the circumstances, present application will have to be allowed partly by ordering that the words 'as well as in Official Gazette' and the words 'as well as in Government Gazette' appearing in paras 2 and 3 in my order dated 12-12-1997 deserve to be deleted by saying that they have appeared on account of an error apparent on the face of record. 4. The other contentions raised on behalf of the applicant could not be said to be contentions which could be considered and decided for the purpose of deciding the review application because all these contentions are on account of merits and in a review application there could not be any re-appreciation of the material on record and therefore, there could not be reassessment of the evidence on record. As a matter of fact, no affidavit in reply is filed by the applicant denying the claim made in this petition. Therefore, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 will not survive. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant Mr. As a matter of fact, no affidavit in reply is filed by the applicant denying the claim made in this petition. Therefore, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 will not survive. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Puj vehemently urged before me that in view of the provisions of sub-rule 2 of rule 24, the publication of the notice of admission ought to have been published in the Official Gazette and since there was no publication of notice issued in the Official Gazette, the Court ought not to have passed the winding up order. In order to consider and decide the contention, it is necessary to consider the provisions of rule 24 as a whole. Rule 24 is running as under : "Advertisement of petition.-(1) Where any petition is required to be advertised, it shall, unless the Judge otherwise orders, or these rules otherwise provide be advertised not less than fourteen days before the date fixed for hearing, in one issue of the Official Gazette of the State or the Union Territory concerned, and in one issue each of a daily newspaper in the English language and a daily newspaper in the regional language circulating in the State or the Union Territory concerned, as may be fixed by the Judge. (2) Except in the case of a petition to wind up a company, the Judge may, if he thinks fit, dispense with any advertisement required by these rules." [Emphasis supplied] If the above provisions are considered, then it would be quite clear that the petitioner is required to publish the advertisement in the Official Gazette unless the Judge otherwise orders. Rule 9 of the Company (Court) Rules give inherent powers to the Court to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the court. Said rule 9 is running as under : "Inherent powers of Court.-Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to give such the directions or pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." If the provisions of rule 9 and rule 24 are read together and the orders passed by the learned predecessor late Mr. Justice S.D. Shah, then it would be quite clear that there was no illegality in dispensing with the publication of notice in the Official Gazette. Rule 24 itself says in sub-rule 1 that any petition is required to be advertised unless the Judge otherwise orders or these rules i.e. Company (Court) Rules, otherwise provide. The learned advocate for the applicant stressed on the provisions of sub-rule 2 of rule 24 and urged before me that in case of the petition to winding up, the company Judge has no discretion of dispensing with the advertisement required under the rules. It is very pertinent to note that in the order dated 29-3-1994 late Mr. Justice S.D. Shah had not dispensed with the advertisement but what has been dispensed with by him, is only the publication of the advertisement in the Official Gazette. He has ordered to advertise the petition in the local Gujarati daily as well as in the English daily, but he has only permitted not to advertise the petition in the Official Gazette and in my opinion, in view of the provisions of rule 9 well as sub-rule 1 of rule 24, it is open for him to do so. 6. Now apart from the above aspect, it must be mentioned here that after the issuance of the advertisement, present applicant had not put in their appearance and had not raised objection to the petitioner seeking winding up of the applicant's company by filing affidavit in reply. It was open for the applicant to raise an objection for the said order and could have also filed a review application before the Judge after the petition was advertised as per the order dated 29-3-1994 but when the applicant has failed to do so, it is not now open to raise that contention in a review petition. It must also be mentioned here that failure to advertise in the Official Gazette may at the most considered to be an irregularity and it could not be said to be an illegality. Mr. Puj the learned advocate for the applicant has cited before me the cases of N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Pravinchandra P. Mehta (1991) 70 Comp. Cas. 31 (Bom.), G.T. Swanzy v. Goodluck Agencies (1990) 69 Comp. Cas. 819 (Kar.) and Falcon Gulf Ceramics Ltd v. Industrial Designs Bureau AIR 1994 (Raj.) 120 . Mr. Puj the learned advocate for the applicant has cited before me the cases of N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Pravinchandra P. Mehta (1991) 70 Comp. Cas. 31 (Bom.), G.T. Swanzy v. Goodluck Agencies (1990) 69 Comp. Cas. 819 (Kar.) and Falcon Gulf Ceramics Ltd v. Industrial Designs Bureau AIR 1994 (Raj.) 120 . Out of these three cases, none of them are applicable to the facts of the case before me. In N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises (P.) Ltd's case (supra) there was consideration of legality of the notice under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and its service. In that case, affidavit in reply was filed and in that a contention was raised that the notice under section 434 had not been sent to the company's registered office and that contention was accepted by the Court. In G. 7. Swamy's case (supra) after the order of passing of winding up the company had paid the debt of the petitioner who had sought the winding up of the company and there after had moved to recall the order of winding up. Said claim of original petitioner was not objected by any party on record and therefore, in the circumstances under the inherent powers under rules 6 and 9, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 the order was recalled. In the last case i.e. Falcon Gulf Ceramics Ltd' scase (supra) there was no as a matter of fact issuance of advertisement either in the Government Gazette or in the local newspaper. As provided under rule 24 there was also no order passed for issuing advertisement and therefore, in the circumstances the order of winding up of the company was set aside by holding that mandatory provisions of rule 96 were not followed and therefore, the order was vitiated and consequently quashed. In the present case as a matter affect there is an order to issue advertisement. There is a publication of advertisement in the local newspaper. The company Judge has dispensed with the publication of advertisement in the Official Gazette. Therefore, it could not be said that there is no compliance with the mandatory provisions of rules 24 and 96 thus I hold that all the case cited before me by Mr. Puj has no application to the facts before me. Thus first ground fails. 7. The company Judge has dispensed with the publication of advertisement in the Official Gazette. Therefore, it could not be said that there is no compliance with the mandatory provisions of rules 24 and 96 thus I hold that all the case cited before me by Mr. Puj has no application to the facts before me. Thus first ground fails. 7. The order of restoration of the petition which was dismissed for default could not be taken into consideration in considering the review of any order passed on 12-12-1997. I cannot, while considering review of my order of 12-12-1997, consider and decide the validity of order passed by my predecessor on 31-1-1995. In view of the provision of rule 9 of Company (Court) Rule as well as inherent powers, Court can pass an order of restoration. Hence it could not be said that said order was without jurisdiction. Thus ground No. 2 also fails. 8. Thus I partly allow the present review application and I order that the words 'as well as in Official Gazette' appearing in lines 6 and 7 of para Nos. 2 and the words 'as well as in Government Gazette' appearing in the 12th line of para 3 of my order dated 12-12-1997 shall stand deleted and they be removed from the original judgment. 9. As per the orders of the appellate Court in OJ Appeal No. 4 of 98, present applicant has deposited certain amount in this Court. The appellate Court while disposing of the appeal on account of applicant's prayer to allow him to file review application has passed an order dated 19-2-1998 that the company Court is to deal with the amount deposited by the applicant. The learned advocate for the respondent wants me to hand over the said amount to him but when the order of winding up is there, it is not possible to prefer only one creditor. He can move the Official Liquidator to get the amount but it is not possible for this Court at this stage to disburse the amount and direct the same to be paid to the respondent in the original petition. 10. Thus the present application stands substantially rejected. He can move the Official Liquidator to get the amount but it is not possible for this Court at this stage to disburse the amount and direct the same to be paid to the respondent in the original petition. 10. Thus the present application stands substantially rejected. The amount deposited by the present applicant in this Court after the order of the appellate bench in OJ Appeal No. 4 of 1998 be invested in FDR in any of the Nationalized Bank by the Registrar of this Court in his name and said amount together with the interest accrued thereon be subsequently handed over to the OL for disbursing the same amongst the creditors.