1 S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.161/2008 Shivkant Panday Vs. Punjab National Bank & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 21-08-2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.PATHAK Mr.Virendra Agarwal, for the appellant BY THE COURT: This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No.164/2008, whereby the application for restoration filed by the respondent has been allowed. Briefly stated the facts for disposal of this revision petition are that the Bank-respondent No.1 file a suit against petitioner and non-petitioners No.2 & 3 for recovery of loan amount, which was advanced to Anurag Panday. In the suit an application was moved by the father the present petitioner of deceased Anurag Panday to the effect that he neither took loan amount from the respondent-Bank nor was a party to the documents executed in relation to advancement of the loan and is having no connection with the loan amount. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. the suit was not maintainable against him. Before any decision on this application, on 15.5.2006 the suit was dismissed in default for non- appearance and subsequently on the next date i.e. on 16.5.2006 the application for restoration was moved and that was allowed. Hence the present petition has been filed. 2 The grievance of the petitioner is that after filing the suit several times the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff sought adjournments and avoided arguments on application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and purposely got the plaint dismissed and subsequently got it restored by giving wrong facts and grounds for restoring the application. According to the learned counsel, the revision petition needs to be allowed and the order restoring the appeal requires to be set aside and the suit is, therefore, required to be dismissed. In this case notices were issued on previous occasion but today when the matter came up to see the service, it was submitted that matter may be disposed of at this stage as a short point is involved in relation to allowing restoration application, therefore, the mater has been taken up for final disposal today. It is settled position of law that revisional jurisdiction is limited and it is required to be exercised when it appears to the court that the order passed by the court below suffers from the following infirmities:- (i) The court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. (ii) The court has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested; or (iii) The court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, I do not find any such illegality in this case in restoring the suit on the application moved on very 3 next date of the dismissal of the suit, but at the same time, I deem it proper to direct the trial court to decide the application, which has been filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. preferrably within two months. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed while maintaining the order restoring the appeal passed by the trial court with the direction that the trial court shall consider the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and preferrably decide the same within a period of two months. (S.P.PATHAK),J. BKS/-