DHRUBA CH PATNAIK Vs. ANTARYAMI PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in Civil Revision No. 244 of 2001 has filed this review application against the judgment of this Court passed in the aforesaid Civil Revision dismissing the same on 3.4.2002.

(2.) SRI B. H. Mohanty, learned counsel for petitioner challenged the order basically on two grounds : (1) the written statement on behalf of defendant No. 2 had not been filed at all and copy of the written statement having been placed before the Court at the time of argument the same was taken into consideration which resulted in a wrong decision by this Court and (ii) there being no scope for filing a rejoinder to the written statement, there was no scope for denying the allegation made in the written statement and therefore, this Court committed an error of law in observing that there was no denial of allegations made in the written statement.

(3.) SO far as second ground is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner is thoroughly misconceived. At the time of hearing of Civil Revision, Sri Milan Kanungo was the Advocate appearing for petitioner. In course of argument, this Court had put a question to Sri Kanungo as to whether the plaintiff -petitioner has sold his shares or not and there was no reply to such a question. Taking that into consideration, an observation was made by the Court that there is no denial to the ground taken by defendant No. 2 that plaintiff -petitioner had sold his shares. This Court is well aware of the procedure and practice in the subordinate Courts and fails to understand as to how such an impression was created in the mind of the learned counsel for petitioner that the Court was not aware of such procedure. He should have atleast consulted the previous counsel before drafting the review application. However, it is made clear that while dealing with an application for injunction all the views expressed by the Court are only prima facie views subject to proof by either party in trial.