Hasmukhrai Khelshanker Thaker. Vs. Indiana Ophthelmic. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by learned single judge of the patna high court in civil revision no. 945 of 2002. while the aforesaid partition suit was pending, the defendants smt. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas executed a general power of attorney on 31.7.1992 in favour of umesh chandra and dr. sanjeev kumar mishra and the same was registered. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas cannot be allowed to say that their own act of signing the compromise petition was collusive and fraudulent. the high court has observed that defendants nos. 2 and 2a viz., pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas should have consulted the power of attorney dr. sanjeev kumar mishra before signing the compromise petition. the principal is not bound to consult his attorney before signing a.....1. the petitioner/original plaintiff has filed this civil revision application under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, challenging the order passed by the learned extra assistant judge, surendranagar in civil misc. appeal no.75/1996 on 19^th april 1997, dismissing the said appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned 1^st joint civil judge (j.d.), surendranagar below an application exh.5 in regular civil suit no.151/1994 on 30^th september 1995.2. mr.ashwin bhatt, the learned advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of the petitioner. he is, however, not present when the matter is called out on two different occasions. mr.anuj trivedi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent is present. he has submitted that in view of the amendment in civil procedure code,.....

Judgment:
1. The petitioner/original plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Surendranagar in Civil Misc. Appeal No.75/1996 on 19^th April 1997, dismissing the said appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned 1^st Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Surendranagar below an application Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.151/1994 on 30^th September 1995.

2. Mr.Ashwin Bhatt, the learned advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of the petitioner. He is, however, not present when the matter is called out on two different occasions. Mr.Anuj Trivedi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent is present. He has submitted that in view of the amendment in Civil Procedure Code, the Civil Revision Application is not maintainable.

3. Considering the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, the Court is of the view that the present Civil Revision Application is filed against an interim order.

4. The main suit is still pending. In this view of the matter, the present Civil Revision Application is rejected only on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Since the main suit is of the year 1995, the trial Court is directed to decide and dispose of the said suit, if not disposed of so far, as expeditiously as possible preferably within the period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ or from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier.

5. It is made clear that the Court has not gone into the merits of the matter or has not expressed any opinion. The trial Court will decide the suit on the basis of the evidence that may be led and without being influenced by the interim orders.

6. Subject to the above observation and direction, the Civil Revision Application is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost.