All these three revision petitions are at the instance of the judgment debtors in three identical suits and are directed against the dismissal of the review petitions by the executing Court.

2. Since all three matters are similar it would be sufficient if facts in C.R.P.No.250 of 2009 are noticed.

3. The original first respondent herein (now represented by his legal representatives - respondents 2 to 8) tiled a suit for recovery of RsA,12,469/- with 24% interest per annum being O.S.No.876 of 1996 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said respondent herein had claimed that he had supplied handloom fabric to the petitioner herein and as per the invoice - Ex.A-2, a sum of Rs.2,85,916/- remained outstanding. The present suit was, therefore, filed for recovery of the said amount together with interest at 24% per annum on the said amount of Rs.2,85,916/- up to the date of suit making the total suit claim to Rs.4,12,469/-. The said suit on contest was decreed by the trial Court for the said sum of Rs.4, 12,469/- together with future interest at 18% per annum from 13.06.1996 (date of suit) till realization under judgment and decree dated 23.03.2001. The petitioner filed an appeal being CCCA.No.150 of 2001, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and the appellate Court did not interfere with the said judgment and decree except reducing the interest, which was allowed by the trial Court at 24% from date of contract till date of suit, to 18%. The operative portion of the judgment in the appeal of this Court is as follows:

"24. Without going much deep into this aspect, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the commercial nature of transaction, we feel it just to fix the rate of interest at 18% all through i.e. from the date of contract till realization.

With this modification in the rate of interest, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs."

4. The respondent herein filed E.P.No.117 of 2006 claiming balance at Rs.5,21,703/based on the memo of calculation filed by the first respondent/decree holder. The petitioner herein, who is judgment debtor, also filed a calculation memo stating that no amount is due to the decree holder. The respondent/decree holder, thereafter, filed application in E.A.No.371 of 2006 under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to reject the plea of the petitioner/judgment debtor of payment and full and final settlement vide its memo date 29.08.2006. The executing Court heard the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor and by order dated 15.11.2007 in the said E.A came to the conclusion that the petitioner/judgment debtor is due a sum of Rs.2,89,713/- and E.A was allowed to that extent. The petitioner herein, thereafter, filed the present review petition numbered as E.A.No.223 of 2008 seeking review of the said order of the executing Court dated 15.11.2007 in E.A.No.371 of 2006. The said review petition was filed, primarily, to bring to the notice of the executing Court that interest on interest cannot be allowed to be recovered under Section 3(3)(c) of the Interest Act and that the principal amount of invoice only being Rs.2,85,916/- the calculation of interest can only be on the aforesaid amount and thereby there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The said application was contested by the respondent/decree holder and by the impugned order the executing Court rejected the said review petition holding that no ground is made out warranting review. Questioning the said impugned order the judgment debtor has filed the present revision.

5. Heard Mrs. A. Anasuya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. Mrs. A. Anasuya, learned counsel, has contended that the decree as granted by the trial Court was modified by the appellate Court and thereby the interest could have been charged on the invoice amount of Rs.2,85,916/- fro