ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. Instant Review Petition is preferred under Order Order XLVII Rule 1, read with Section 114 and 151 CPC for, seeking recall of the Order dated 29.05.2024, whereby an order is passed on Interim Application No. 1/2023, under Order XX Rule 12, read with Section 151 CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Objector, while placing reliance upon the grounds of review, submitted that he has preferred an execution appeal before this Hon’ble Court, raising several serious issues, which includes the status of land. He further submitted that the law of sealing is also applicable in the instant case, but the same was not considered while passing the impugned order. He further submitted that the sealing proceedings are still pending before the SDO Kota, and non-petitioner No. 1 has no right to claim any mesne profit from the petitioner. He further submitted that the property in question is allegedly purchased by non-petitioner No. 1 without any title. He also submitted that until and unless the rights of the present petitioner are determined by this Court in the execution appeal, respondent No. 1 is not entitled for mesne profit as claimed by him. He further referred the orders dated 07.01.1994 and 04.10.2018 passed by the Revenue Board, and submitted that at this stage any direction for means profit will adversely affect the rightful claim of the petitioner, therefore, the order passed by this Court suffers from an error apparent on record and the same is liable to be reviewed. 3. The aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the review petition is not maintainable, as this Hon’ble Court has passed the order on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court. He further submitted that respondent No. 1 has purchased the property by registered sale deed, and the order of the Trial Court is passed in favour of respondent No. 1, which is sufficient to fortify the claim of respondent No. 1. 4. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The instant review petition is filed for review of order dated 29.05.2024, which is passed on Interim Application No. 1/2023 and same runs as under:- 1. We are considering IA no. 1/2023 filed under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking direction for mesne profit. 2. 5. The instant review petition is filed for review of order dated 29.05.2024, which is passed on Interim Application No. 1/2023 and same runs as under:- 1. We are considering IA no. 1/2023 filed under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking direction for mesne profit. 2. Learned counsel for applicant plaintiff (respondent no.1) submits that plaintiff being landlord has filed a suit for eviction against tenant respondent no.2 and same was decreed in favour of plaintiff by learned trial court but during execution proceedings present objector has filed objection petition wherein objector has claimed that the possession of the suit property was taken from respondent no.2 tenant. He further submits that besides delay in execution, on the basis of admission of objector the respondent no.1 is entitled to claim mesne profit from objector, as he is delaying the execution proceedings. He further submits that at present the compensation from the suit property should be granted on the basis of market rent, range of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 45,000/- and he prayed that adequate mesne profit be granted to him. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for petitioner (objector) on the ground that a bona fide claim has been made by him for the suit property and same is required to be adjudicated on merits. He further contended that the application is frivolous, mis-conceived and baseless and respondent no.1 has no right to claim ownership over the suit property. He specifically mentioned the grounds and submitted that the respondent no.1 has filed a sham suit against respondent no.2 to procure the possession of the property owned by petitioner objector. At last, he submitted that this is not case wherein mesne profit can be granted to the applicant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 5. Aggrieved from dismissal of objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC on 18.07.2014 by learned Additional District Judge no. 3, Kota instant execution first appeal is preferred by the appellant objector. The objection petition was filed during execution of judgment and decree dated 03.10.2008 in civil suit no. 16/2003 titled as Dilip Vs. Subhash Sharma, aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 03.10.2008, a S.B. CFA No. 69/2009 was preferred by tenant Subhash Sharma, and stay application no. 3, Kota instant execution first appeal is preferred by the appellant objector. The objection petition was filed during execution of judgment and decree dated 03.10.2008 in civil suit no. 16/2003 titled as Dilip Vs. Subhash Sharma, aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 03.10.2008, a S.B. CFA No. 69/2009 was preferred by tenant Subhash Sharma, and stay application no. 315/2009 was dismissed on 18.03.2009 observing that appellant Subhash Sharma is not in possession of suit property. 6. The objector appellant has claimed that disputed property is situated in khasra no. 94/75 and it was in the name of Chandrakant Rao and Purushottam Rao wherein the respondents (plaintiff and defendant in civil suit no. 16/2003) have no right. The objector further mentioned chequered history of litigation related with present land. 7. Learned trial court has dismissed objection petition. Hence, this appeal. At this stage, this Court cannot adjudicate the rival claims of the parties as same requires detailed consideration. 8. A fact is quite clear that in the instant case respondent no.1 (plaintiff) has filed a suit for eviction before the trial court against respondent no.2 (tenant). On the basis of pleadings of the parties, eight issues were framed by learned Additional District Judge no.3, Kota and after considering the material and evidence, this suit was decreed on 03.10.2008. 9. The admission made by appellant objector in a petition clearly indicate that he has taken over the possession of the suit property and objecting the decree passed in favour of decree holder Dilip Kumar. Mesne profit of property has been defined under Section 2(12) of CPC. “Mesne profits of property” mean those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession. 10. In case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 705, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appellate court does have jurisdiction to put reasonable terms and conditions as would in its opinion reasonable to compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree while granting the stay. 10. In case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 705, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appellate court does have jurisdiction to put reasonable terms and conditions as would in its opinion reasonable to compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree while granting the stay. The court relying upon the provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act, observed that on passing the decree for eviction by a competent Court, the tenant is liable to pay mense profit or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have able to let out the premises in present and earn the profit if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The Court has explained that because of pendency of appeal which may be in continuation of suit the doctrine of merger does not have effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passed by the superior forum at a later date. 11. Aforesaid principle was approved in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Supermax International Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 772 . Further, considering the aforesaid judgment in case of M/s. Martin and Harris Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Mehta and Ors. (Civil Appeal 4646-47 of 2022) on 06.07.2022 Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the determination of mesne profit in a commercial area of Jaipur (Rajasthan). 12. Considering the aforesaid principle of law, the fact is quite that that the objector (present appellant) has filed an objection petition in an execution proceedings but he has not challenged the decree passed in favour of decree holder (landlord) by filing any appeal under Section 96 of CPC. The objector has right to file objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC but at the same time, he is also liable for the mesne profit for delaying the execution proceedings, therefore, it is appropriate to allow the application for mesne profit. 13. Considering aforesaid and also material placed on record, I am of the considered view that atleast Rs. 13. Considering aforesaid and also material placed on record, I am of the considered view that atleast Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) per month is required to be determined in the instant case from the date of filing of application and which shall be payable to the respondent no.1 decree holder (landlord) but that shall be subject to condition that in case appellant objector succeeds in instant appeal then the decree holder (landlord) shall return or refund the amount with interest @ 6% p.a. 14. In view of aforesaid, the application is hereby allowed and respondent no.1 (landlord) decree holder is entitled to claim Rs. 15,000/- per month as mesne profit from appellant objector till actual possession of the suit property or disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. In order to obtain aforesaid mesne profit, the respondent no.1 is required to file an undertaking with solvent security before learned trial court that in case the appellant succeeds in appeal then the amount received under this order shall be returned/ refunded with the interest @ 6% p.a. to the appellant, within period of four weeks. 6. Order 47, Rule 1 CPC provides for review of an order or judgment passed by the Court, and the Supreme Court has consolidated the grounds for review into three broad heads, namely:- (i) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (ii) discovery of a new or important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the petitioner’s knowledge or could not be produced at the time of original judgment or order; (iii) any other sufficient reason, which has held must be analogous to the first two categories and not a general power to reconsider on merits. 7. The object and purpose of review jurisdiction is to correct an error or mistake apparent or significant on the face of the record so as to prevent grave injustice. The jurisdiction of review is different from an appeal, and a Court cannot act as a Court of appeal against its own order. 8. In case of Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. and Ors. The jurisdiction of review is different from an appeal, and a Court cannot act as a Court of appeal against its own order. 8. In case of Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. and Ors. reported as MANU/SC/0741/2023 it was held that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, the review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order while referring judgment in case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB (2020) 2 SCC 677 has observed that scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. 9. Having considered the limited jurisdiction under the review and limitation it is apparent on record this Court has disposed of application No. 01/2023 under Order XX Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC on the basis of the claim made before the Court and there is no ground to entertain the review petition as there is no error apparent on record, therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the review petition preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.