STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. K.YOGEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned advocate Mr. Kapadia submitted that there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the learned trial Judge and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in revision. The order passed by the learned trial Judge is such that it cannot be allowed to stand for a moment. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Manick Chandra Nandi v. Debdas Nandy, AIR 1986 SC 446, I am inclined to Say that this is a case in which the conclusion reached by the learned trial Judge is not borne out by the material on record and the conclusion reached by him is so palpably wrong that if allowed to stand, would result in grave injustice to the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge even can be said to have committed an error of jurisdiction or, at any rate, having acted with material irregularity in exercising the jurisdiction in giving the directions to the Receivers to act as per Exhibit 98, inspite of the fact that the order below was set aside. The order below Exhibit 98 did not survive in view of the fact that the order below Exhibit 91 was set aside and, therefore, it can be said that the Court acted on the material which was not in existence. The effect of setting aside the order below Exhibit 91 was to stop any further proceedings in pursuance of the directions given below Exhibit 91. In view of this, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to act upon Exhibit 98.