JUDGMENT :- 1. Animadverting upon the order of this Court dated 12.4.2011 passed in S.A.No.462 of 2010 this Review application is filed. 2. Heard both. 3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this review application would run thus: Indubitably and indisputably, S.A.No.462 of 2010 was disposed of by the judgment dated 12.4.2011, the operative portion of which would run thus: "10. In the result, the second appeal stands allowed to the limited extent modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the effect that the first defendant shall pay the sum of Rs.2,55,000/-(rupees two lakhs fifty five thousand) with 9% interest epr annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation on the suit amount. However there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant/defendant would submit that one of the law points raised by him as against the awarding of pre-suit interest at the rate of 18% per annum by the trial Court and as confirmed by the first appellate Court, was not considered by this Court and he also, out of over sight, has not raised it at the time of disposal of the second appeal. 5. Whereupon both sides were heard. 6. It is quite obvious that the substantial law point raised by the appellant in the grounds was not considered and hence it is just and necessary to consider the same in the interest of justice. 7. Hence, I am of the view that on that point also additionally substantial question of law could be framed as under: Whether the Courts below were justified in awarding interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.2,55,000/-(rupees two lakhs fifty five thousand) without assigning any valid reason whatsoever? 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant/defendant would pyramid his argument to the effect that there was mutual mistake on the part of both sides in not specifying the correct area in the agreement to sell and as such, the petitioner/appellant/defendant being the land owner should not be mulcted with the liability to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 9. 9. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would advance her argument as under: (a) The petitioner/appellant/defendant in fact utilised the sum of Rs.2,55,000/-in discharging his loan and there is evidence to that effect and in such a case, he saved himself from paying further interest to his creditor with the help of the money paid by the respondent/plaintiff and wherefore, he has to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the rate of interest cannot be reduced below 12% per annum in any event. (b) The learned counsel for the plaintiff also would cite the following decision of the Honourable Apex Court: AIR 207 SUPREME COURT 1198 – ALOK SHANKER PANDEY V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, certain excerpts from it would run thus: "8. We are of the opinion that there is no hard and fast rule about how much interest should be granted and it all depends on the facts and circumstances of the each case. We are of the opinion that the grant of interest of 12% per annum is appropriate in the facts of this particular case. However, we are also of the opinion that since interest was not granted to the appellant along with the principal amount, the respondent should then in addition to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum also pay to appellant interest at the same rate on the aforesaid interest from the date of payment of installments by the appellant to the respondent till the date of refund on this amount, and the entire amount mentioned above must be paid to the appellant within two months from the date of this judgment." 10. A mere running of the eye over the said precedent decision would connote and denote that the said judgment emerged relating to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (54 of 1969) and that too, under Section 12B of the Act. Their Lordships felt that had the interest been paid within a reasonable time, then the claimant would have deposited it in some bank and earned interest out of that interest. Accordingly, they assessed and awarded interest in that case. 11. But here, I would like to distinguish this case on facts. In the cited case, commercial transaction was involved and there was failure to discharge one's duty. But here there is mutual mistake. Accordingly, they assessed and awarded interest in that case. 11. But here, I would like to distinguish this case on facts. In the cited case, commercial transaction was involved and there was failure to discharge one's duty. But here there is mutual mistake. Hence, I am of the view that the same logic as found embedded in the Honourable Apex Court's judgment cannot be ushered in, in this case in view of the factual matrix being different. 12. No doubt, the petitioner/appellant/defendant discharged his loan with the help of the money which he got it from the respondent/plaintiff and thereby, he saved himself from the further burden of interest payable by him to his creditor. But that alone cannot be the criterion. What one should see here is as to who was at fault. 13. Indubitably and indisputably the adjudication regarding other issues would clearly evince and evidence, portray and convey that the fault was on both. The measurement was not correctly got incorporated in the evidence. The evidence on recorda fortiori would demonstrate and indicate that even before entering into such agreement in the form of Ex.A1, the property was measured and the respondent/plaintiff was aware of the deficiency in the measurement. But he was not careful enough in getting it incorporated in the agreement as such. 14. All told, considering the pro et contra, I am of the view that here the discomfiture erupted because of the mutual mistake on both sides. On balance, interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as claimed, cannot straight away be awarded and in my considered opinion incommensurate and inconcinnity with the fault theory ushered in this case by one for assessing interest, awarding of interest at the rate of 9% per annum would meet the ends of justice. In fact, already this Court awarded pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and 6% interest per annum towards post decretal interest. 15. Accordingly, the additional substantial question of law is decided to the effect that the pre-suit interest also shall be awarded at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.2,55,000/-(rupees two lakhs fifty five thousand) in this matter in addition to the pendente lite interest and total decreetal interest awarded by this Court and accordingly the judgments and decrees of both the fora below shall stand modified. The review application is disposed of accordingly. No costs.