This review petition is against the judgment dated 12-11-1993 in C.R.P.No.2623 of 1990, which was actually a common judgment in the said civil revision petition and another connected S.A.No.1477 of 1988. In both the civil revision petition and the second Appeal, the defendant in O.S.No. 636 of 1982 on the file of the 8th Assistant City Civil Court, Madras is the petitioner and appellant respectively. Though both were heard together, learned counsel who appeared in both the matters, did not make separate arguments in the civil revision petition. While the second appeal was dismissed on merits, the civil revision petition was dismissed on the ground that no argument was advanced therein. Now, the petitioner in the civil revision petition has filed this review application.

2. The Suit was for recovery of Rs. 8,125/- with interest at the “Court rate” from the date of plaint (24-12-1981). The judgment by the trial court specifically stated that “the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs.6,400/- only”. In other words, it did not actually say any thing about interest. But the decree, as drafted by the trial court was for Rs.6,400/-together with interest at 18 per cent per an