1 cac300-11.sxw jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 300 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2010 Eagle seals & System India Ltd. .. Applicant Versus Process Pumps (I) Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondents Mr. A. A. Desai for the applicant Mr. S.S. Kanitkar for the respondent CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 30th August, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard Mr. Desai for the applicant and Mr. Kanitkar for the respondent. 2. The applicant in this Civil Application prays that the order passed by this Court on 13th April, 2011 is to be recalled. The applicant is the plaintiff in the Suit filed for money recovery against the respondent who is defendant in the suit. 3. The suit was filed under the caption of Eagle Pooonawala Industry Limited. According to the applicant, i.e. 2 cac300-11.sxw the original respondent, the name of the applicant company was only changed and there was no amalgamation or change of business. The suit filed by the Applicant -original plaintiff was dismissed for default. However, it was subsequently restored. In the said application, the respondent i.e. the original defendant raised issue of locus of the present applicant as there was change in the name of the Company who had filed the suit. 4. The said application for restoration was allowed by the trial Court by passing the a detailed order on 17th November, 2008. The present respondent-original defendant filed Civil Revision Application No. 322 of 2010 before this Court challenging the said order of restoration. The said Civil Revision Application was rejected by this Court by an order dated 13th April, 2011. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant (original defendant) in CRA No.322/2010 while arguing the Civil Revision Application, made submissions that the Company of the plaintiff is amalgamated, unless rights to sue in respect of the claim in the plaint were assigned to the new 3 cac300-11.sxw company, ( applicant herein) the application for restoration would not be maintainable. This Court, while accepting those submissions, observed that: 'In that view of the matter, applicant if so desires, would be entitled to raise such an issue in the additional written statement or by filing an application framing preliminary issue." This Court also observed that "if such an issue is raised at the behest of the applicant-defendant, the learned trial Court would be required to consider and decide the same on its own merits." 6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the issue of the amalgamation was already raised and it was decided by the trial court. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of passing the said order. He further submits that there is no evidence on record that the the applicant Company was amalgamated with the original plaintiff, but it is only a change of name and title. 7. Perused the order dated 13th July, 2011. The order does not show appearance of the counsel of the respondent i.e. the present applicant. It appears that this Court has passed the order on merit and has rejected the application. 4 cac300-11.sxw The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot bring the case within the ambit of review. 8. The application is rejected. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)