JITENDRA JAIN Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This civil revision is directed against the order dated 23.1.1991 passed by the IVth Addl. District Judge, Gorakhpur by which the learned Judge rejected the application 4C filed by the defendant-revisionist for recalling the order dated 28.10.1989 passed by the court by which the court had been pleased to restore the original suit to its original number after recalling the order dated 29.8.1989.

(2.) THIS revision is listed for admission. The respondent has filed his appearance along with an application ami counter affidavit for vacating the interim stay order passed by the court. The rejoinder affidavit is also on record. The revision has not yet been admitted and I do not consider it necessary to call for the record of the court below at this stage. The learned counsel for the parties consented that revision be finally decided without record.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant in the present revision argued the point, mentioned in the above paragraphs. THE learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that a writ petition was also filed by the defendant in the High Court, which was pending. It was submitted that during pendency of the writ petition in the High Court against an order which was also challenged before the court below, a request was made to stay the consideration and disposal of the application submitted by the revisionist. A perusal of the order impugned shows that the court referred to the order-sheet dated 28.10.1989 in the suit which showed that the record of the suit was received after 31.5.1989 from the court of Ilnd Addl. Civil Judge. THE learned court: below found as a fact that after the transfer of the suit from the court of Ilnd Addl. Civil Judge, no notice or information was given to the plaintiff. He also found that according to Rule 89A of General Rules (Civil), it was also mandatory for the court to send the information to the parties about the transfer of the case. THE order-sheet of the suit nowhere mentioned that any information after the transfer of the suit was given to the plaintiff-respondent. No information about the transfer was given to the counsel for the plaintiff. THE court below recorded finding of fact that the record of the suit was received on 1.7.1989 after transfer from the court of IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge to Ilnd Addl. Civil Judge. THEre is no endorsement of the counsel for either parties in the order-sheet of the suit. THE: finding that no information after the transfer of the suit was given to the counsel for the respondent is a finding of fact and is not open to challenge in the present revision.