STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. GANESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision application is directed against the order dated 16-3-1990 passed by the subordinate Judge, Katihar in Misc. Case No. 61 of 1989 whereby and where under, the Miscellaneous application, filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order IX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code has been disallowed. The petitioner filed Money suit No. 40 of 1984 in the court of subordinate Judge, Katihar for realisation of a sum of Rs. 21, 608-65 P. being substanding dues of loan taken by opposite party No. 1 on the guarantee of opposite party No. 2.

(2.) It appear that on the application of the plaintiff-petitioner the process was ordered to be served as per the Order V, Rule 20 of the C. P. C. and the plaintiff was directed to take necessary steps and file requisites. The last date fixed for the said purpose was 30th August, 1989. It is claimed that on the said date a petition for time was filed on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner on the ground that requisite for filing could not be prepared since the Branch,Manager of the petitioner-bank had gone to Purnea a day earlier and could not return till date. The said petition was rejected and the suit was dismissed for default.

(3.) Thereafter, an application under order IX Rule 4, C.P.C.. was filed for restoration of the said suit, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 61 of 89. The said Miscellaneous application was disallowed vide the impugned order. The present revision application was also filed much after the statutory period of limitation. However the limitation was condoned by order dated 29-1-1991. The only plea taken in the revision application is that the plaintiff petitioner Bank was not informed about the progress of the auit despite several requests. At the same time, it is also claimed that the petitioner used to contact his learned Advocate from, time to time to know about the progress of the suit.