JUDGMENT : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. 1. By way of this instant order, miscellaneous application No.968/2014 filed u/Sec.151 CPC on behalf of plaintiff-respondent is being decided wherein it has been stated that the Trial Court vide impugned order directed for payment of Rs.3,000/- per month by way of mesne profit from 11.07.2002 but inadvertently reduced by this Court to Rs.500/- only. 2. The judgment and decree passed Trial Court was challenged by the appellant before this Court and this Court on 06.05.2010 while admitting the appeal, stayed the operation of the order and judgment dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Trial Court. Subsequent thereto, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.11.2012 on an application filed on behalf of the respondent u/Ord. 41 Rule 1 Sub- Clause (3) and Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC modified the order, which reads as under:- "Meanwhile the operation of judgment and decree dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur shall remain stayed provided the defendants-appellants make the payment of mesne profit @ Rs.500/- per month." 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the suit was for possession and mesne profit. The Trial Court in its wisdom found Rs.3,000/- per month to be a reasonable mesne profit. Learned counsel submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while modifying order dated 29.11.2012 reduced the mesne profit to Rs.500/- per month, which according to her may be an apparent error as the amount originally granted was Rs.3,000/- per month which could not have been reduced to Rs.500/- per month, rather on the contrary, it ought to have been enhanced and not to be reduced in any manner. Counsel further submits that the appellant is enjoying residential portion which was given to him and even otherwise, property is situated in thickly populated area and in heart of the city and the present fair market value and rental is substantially higher and to the extent of Rs.20,000/- per month and prays that the order is required to be modified which was allowed by the Trial Court in the impugned order and thus, prays that at least Rs.3,000/- per month which was directed by the Trial Court deserves to be allowed. She also prays that liberty may be granted to her to file further application for enhancing the mesne profit. 4. She also prays that liberty may be granted to her to file further application for enhancing the mesne profit. 4. Per-contra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that this Court has no authority to modify the order passed earlier and it is seriously objected that the order cannot be modified at all. Counsel further contended that the appellant is only living in a single room and even otherwise, Court thought it prudent to allow Rs.500/- per month only and such factors have been taken into consideration at the time when the earlier order was modified by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.11.2012 and thus, learned counsel seriously objects to enhancing of the mesne profit from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.3,000/- per month and submits that there being no fresh application for enhancement of the said amount from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.3,000/- per month, therefore no interference is needed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. On perusal of the order of the Trial Court, it is abundantly clear that the Trial Court held that an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month be paid by the appellant-defendant from 11.07.2002 and accordingly decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. When the matter came up before this Court initially the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while admitting the appeal on 06.05.2010 stayed operation of the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Trial Court on an application filed on behalf of the respondent order came to be passed on 29.11.2012 and the material portion of the order has been reproduced herein before. 7. In my view, it appears that there is some apparent error which has crept in the order dated 29.11.2012 as there is no basis to reduce the mesne profit at the rate of Rs.500/- per month as against Rs.3,000/- per month which was even held by the Trial Court in its judgment and decree dated 20.11.2009. In my view, it is an apparent error and could have been even otherwise, suo-motu rectified irrespective of moving application by either side, if brought to the notice of the Court at any stage, as an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month could not have been replaced by Rs.500/- per month which was allowed by the Trial Court in its impugned order. 8. 8. Accordingly, the contention of the counsel for the respondent deserves to be accepted and the same are accepted. The said application stands allowed and the consequence is that the appellant is required to pay the amount as already allowed by the Trial Court in its impugned order dated 20.11.2009 from 11.07.2002. In case, amount of Rs.500/- per month has been paid, the same shall however be adjusted. 9. Let the arrears be paid within a period of three months and amount of Rs.3,000/- shall be paid by the appellant on month to month basis regularly on and from 17.12.2009 till disposal of the appeal and henceforth shall be deposited by 15th day of every month in the bank account No. 309702010096375 (Union Bank of India, Branch Johari Bazar, Jaipur) of respondent in which the amount, as aforesaid, is to be deposited by the appellant. In case the appellant fails to deposit the arrears and mesne profits as aforesaid, the respondent shall be at liberty to get the decree executed immediately without taking recourse of filing an application for execution. The respondent will also give an undertaking to the Trial Court that in case the appellant succeeds in the instant First Appeal, the respondent shall pay the amount with interest @ 6% within a period of two months of disposal of the appeal. 10. Counsel for the respondent is also at liberty to move a fresh application for enhancement of mesne profit. 11. The miscellaneous application accordingly stands disposed off.