BANK OF BARODA Vs. MYSORE CHIP BOARDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, necessary for the disposal of these two appeals, may be stated thus:-

(2.) The plaintiff-bank filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 92,38,796-13 from the defendants. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed LA. No. 4 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining the first defendant-company from alienating in any manner any of the movable or immovable properties including machinery, equipment, accessories, pending disposal of the case. The learned Civil Judge passed an ex-parte order of temporary injunction as prayed for. After service of notice, the first defendant filed an application I.A. No. 6 for vacating the ex-parte order of temporary injunction granted in I.A. No. 4. The plaintiff immediately filed an application I.A. No. 7 for postponement of consideration of I.A. No. 6 till the first defendant filed the written statement. The learned trial Judge allowed I.A. No. 7 by his order dated 2-8-1988 and directed the firsl defendant to file its written statement by 4-8-1988 after holding that the first defendant can participate in the proceedings only if it files written statement. The first defendant, thereafter, filed an application I.A. No. 12 under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC praying for review of the order passed in I.A. No. 7 on 2-8-1988. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 19th August, 1988 reviewed and set aside the order passed by him earlier and allowed I.A. No. 12. M.FA. No. 1910/1988:

(3.) M.F.A. No. 1910/1988 is filed by the plaintiff-bankchallenging the order passed on I.A. No. 12 on 19-8-1988 passed by the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge, Mysore in O.S. No. 408/1988. Sri K.S. Savanur, learned advocate for the appellant (plaintiff-Bank) contends that there was no scope for review and the remedy available for the first defendant was to approach this Court in revision and not seeking review of the order passed in I.A, No. 7.