(1.) After disposal of Civil Revision No. 610/91 on 9 -7 -1993 the present application has been filed with the prayer that the judgment and decree dated 10 -11 -1992 and 2 -12 -1992 may be held to be correct and Money Suit No. 7/87 may be directed to be heard and disposed of afresh. Civil Revision No. 610/91 had been filed by the plaintiff against an order of the Subordinate Judge allowing an application for amendment of the written statement. The plaintiff also filed an application seeking transfer of the suit from the Court of the Subordinate Judga, Jagatsinghpur to any other Court at Cuttack which was registered as MJC No. 110/91. Both those applications were disposed of by a common judgment on 9 -7 -1993. The Court declined to interfere with the order of the Subordinate Judge allowing emendment of the written statement but had directed that amount of Rs. 10 0/ - should be paid to the plaintiff within four weeks from the date of the order. But the prayar for transfer of the suit from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur to any Court at Cuttack was allowed on the ground of convenienca taking into account the intricate questions of law involved and that the ex parte legal advice available at Cuttack and no objection was filed by the Paradeep Port Trust who had entered appearance in the proceeding as early as 19 -9 -1992. This Court directed that the records might be sent to the 1st. Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack who should try and dispose of M. S. No. 7/87 which was pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur. The present application was filed alleging that on expiry of four weeks from the date of disposal of the Civil Revision when the petitioner made enquiries from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur that the suit had been heard on 19 -10 -1992 and judgment had been delivered on 18 -11 -1992 dismissing the suit and decree had been drawn up on 2 -12 -1992. It is alleged in the application that during the pendency of Civil Revision No. 610/91 this Court on 13 -9 -1991 had passed an order in Misc. Case No. 970/91 staying further proceedings in M. S 7/87 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur and the said order for stav was received by the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghour on 3 -10 -1991 as is apparent from Order No. 120 but notwithstanding the aforesaid stay order the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur disposed of the suit on 18 -11 -1992 dismissing the same and decree was drawn up on 2 -12 - 1992 and, therefore, the judgment and decree passed in the suit are nullity,
(2.) IN view of the assertion of the petitioner in his application which was registered as Misc. Case No. 259 93 with rsgard to order No. 120 of the Subordinate Judge. Jagatsinghpur the records of the entire Money Suit was called for. The First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack also wrote a letter to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Orissa, on 25 -8 1993 stating therein that the records of MS No. 7/87 had bean received by him from the Subordinate Judge Jagatsinghpur on transfer for disposal bus on perusal of the records it appears that the suit in question had been disposed of on contest on 18 -11 -1992 and decree has bean drawn up and sealed on 2 -12 -1992.
(3.) THE Subordinate Judge has stated in his explanation that in Civil Revision No. 370/91 the High Court had stayed further proceedings in M. S. 7/87 and the stay order had been duly communicated to the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur and order No. 117 dated 17 -6 -1991 clearly mentions of the same. The suit had been adjourned from time to time awaiting orders of the Hon'ble Court in G. R. 370/91. The Subordinate Judge received intimation of dismissal of G R, 370/91 on 8 -11 -1991. But though High Court in the meantime had entertained another Civil Revision being G. R. 610/91 and had passed an interim order on 13 -9 -1991 but the said order had not been communicated. Since the suit was pending for a long time and no further order of stay had been received from the High Court, on receipt of intimation about dismissal of Civil Revision No. 370/91 he disposed of the Money Suit not being aware of the order of stay on 13 -9 -1991 passed in G. R. 610/91. The allegation of tampering of records was denied.