1. This Review Application has been moved asserting that there is an error in the final order dated 31.08.2023 to the extent that the liability to pay with effect from the date of respective deposits has been incorrectly imposed whereas it ought to have been with effect from 27.11.2018 as held by the Apex Court in the case of Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Ors. (2021) 3 SCC 241.
2. It has also been raised as a ground that the question as to whether refund should be granted in the case where occupation certificates have been obtained and notice of possession issued is already pending consideration before the Apex Court where notices have been issued.
3. The contention therefore is that the direction given to pay delay compensation by calculating interest from the date of respective deposits is erroneous and against record.
4. The aforesaid issues had arisen in the case of Rajiv Sarin Vs. Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited  as mentioned in the order dated 31.08.2023 as well as in the case of Vikramjeet Singh Vs. Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited which was decided later on 06.12.2022. We have followed the later order passed in Vikramjeet Singh’s case dated 06.12.2022 that has been quoted in our order. The said order directs payment from the date of respective deposits.
5. The order in the case of Vikramjeet Singh (Supra) had neither been reversed or modified when the final order was passed on 31.08.2023 and therefore parity was followed for the same reasons.
6. It is relevant to mention that against the order in the case of Vikramjeet Singh (Supra)  as available on the website Civil Appeal Diary No.47487 of 2023 was filed on which orders were passed on 08.12.2023 to the following effect:

"Dated-08.12.2023

                                                               ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Issue notice to show cause as to why this appeal should not be admitted.

3. Tag with C.A. Nos.4550-4552 of 2023 @ Diary No.35468 of 2022.

4. Until further order(s), the operation of the impugned judgment and order shall remain stayed.”

7. This interim order has been passed by the Apex Court after almost 4 months of the passing of the final order in this case on 31.08.2023 which confirms the fact that no order in the case of Vikramjeet Singh (Supra) had been passed when this matter was disposed of.
8. Apart from this, a rehearing cannot be attempted as per the law declared by the Apex Court.  The Application therefore is misconceived and deserves to be rejected in the light of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 185 wherein the Apex Court in para 15 of the judgment has observed, as under:

“While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are   required   to   be   referred   to? In   the   case   of Perry Kansagra   (supra) this   Court   has   observed   that   while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal   over   its   own   order.  It   is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible  in law. It is further observed that review is  not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power.  It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and   exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided.  After considering catena   of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:

“(i)       Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(ii)        Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found.  But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long­drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

(iii)       Power of review may not be exercised on the ground   that   the decision   was   erroneous   on merits.

(iv)       Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.

(v)      An   application   for   review   may   be necessitated   by   way of invoking   the   doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” 

9. Reference be had also to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167, wherein in Para 8 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under:

“It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so: Sajjan Singh v.State of Rajasthan (1965) 1 SCR 933, 948. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment: G.L.Gupta v.D.N.Mehta (1971) 3 SCR 748,750. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice: O.N.Mohindroo v.Distt.Judge, Delhi (1971) 2 SCR 11, 27. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order XL, Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except “where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility”: Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 3 SCR 933.”

10. Accordingly, there is no error apparent on the face of record and the orders were passed after taking into consideration the orders referred to in our order dated 31.08.2023. Consequently, there is no merit. This Review Application is accordingly rejected.