IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.2 of 2009 ---------- 1. Shakti Modern Rice Mill, a Partnership Firm at village –G.T.Road, Dedhapi, District Aurangabad, through Mahendra Prasad, Managing Partner. 2. Mahendra Prasad, son of Gandhi Prasad, resident of village & P.S. Kanbahari, District Aurangabad, Managing Partner of petitioner no.1. 3. Awadhesh Prasad Singh, son of Kamla Prasad Singh, resident of Village Behlola, P.O. Dadhapi, P.S. Madanpur, District Aurangabad. …Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners -Versus- 1. The Bihar State Finance Corporation, Frazer Road, Patna. 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Finance Corporation, Frazer Road, Patna. 3. Branch Manager, Bihar State Finance Corporation, Magadh Branch Office, Katari Hill, Gaya. 4. Branch Manager, Bihar State Finance Corporation, Shahdpur Chowk, Aurangabad … Defendants-respondents-opposite parties ----- For the Petitioners : M/s K. B. Nath and Subodh Chandra Jha, Advocates. For the Opp. Parties : M/s Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate and Raju Giri, Advocate. -------- 12/ 19.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 07.02.2008, by which a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed M.A. No. 297 of 2004 filed by plaintiffs-appellants- petitioners challenging order dated 23.07.2004, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Aurangabad, disposed of Title Suit No. 208 of 1996 directing the plaintiffs to withdraw the plaint to be produced before the Tribunal constituted under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 or to approach the Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial Corporation ( hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity ) for redressal of their grievances. 2 3. Much earlier the petitioners had filed C.W.J.C. No. 10256 of 1993 for fulfilment of contractual obligations by the opposite parties, namely, the Corporation and its authorities as loan for the petitioners had been sanctioned by the opposite parties but in violation of terms of contract, the Corporation had refused to fulfil its obligation to pay the amount of loan already sanctioned. Opposite Party-Corporation contested the claim of the petitioners by filing a counter-affidavit in the writ case, whereafter the petitioners sought permission of this Court to withdraw the said writ petition with a view to explore the possibility of settlement of the matter by making representation to the Managing Director of the Corporation. On that submission learned counsel for the Corporation stated that the Managing Director of the Corporation would certainly consider the petitioners’ case with open mind. In the said circumstances, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 20.04.1995 ( Annexure R/1 to the counter-affidavit ) giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Managing Director or any other forum for appropriate relief. The said order of this Court has not been challenged by any one before any higher court. 4. It transpires that in view of the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioners approached the Managing Director of the Corporation, who passed order dated 02.11.1995 ( Annexure R/2 to the counter affidavit) directing the petitioners to fulfil the settled conditions. However, neither the said conditions were fulfilled nor the petitioners challenged the said order of the Managing Director before 3 any appropriate forum. 5. Inspite of the aforesaid specific orders, the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 208 of 1996 for redressal of their aforesaid grievance. In the said suit, an application was filed by the opposite parties raising the issue of maintainability of the suit, on which point both the parties were heard, whereafter vide order dated 23.07.2004 the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Aurangabad disposed of the suit holding that although the jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred but in view of the specific order of the High Court in writ case and in view of the earlier steps taken by the petitioners before the authorities, it was appropriate for the plaintiffs to withdraw the plaint and move before the Tribunal constituted under the Act or to approach before the Managing Director of the Corporation. 6. Against the aforesaid order of the trial court, the petitioners filed M. A. No. 297 of 2004, which was dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.02.2008 after finding that the learned Subordinate Judge had passed the impugned order in light of the direction of the High Court dated 20.04.1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10256 of 1993 and hence it was justified in asking the petitioners to prefer the claim before the forum as directed by this Court. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor does it find any fresh material to take a different view. Accordingly, this civil review is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )