IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1018 of 2005 ----------- 1. Bihar State Financial Corporation, Frazer Road, Patna through its Managing Director. 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Frazer Road, Patna. …Petitioners Versus 1. State Bank of India, Mumbai through its Chairman 2. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Bihar, Patna 3. State Bank of India, Maurya Lok Branch, Patna through its Branch Manager. …. Respondents ------- For the Petitioners : M/s M. K. Thakur and Girish Kumar, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------ 05/ 14.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Bihar State Financial Corporation and its authorities as well as learned counsel for the respondent-State Bank of India and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner- Corporation in terms of pecuniary loss suffered by it as well as loss of goodwill and prestige and also to pay the cost of litigation due to the alleged wilful default, negligence, carelessness and non-cooperation on the part of the respondents themselves. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that there was no default, negligence, carelessness and non-cooperation on their part rather the fault was squarely on the part of petitioner-Corporation. 4. It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of this writ petition, the amount due had already been paid by the 2 respondents to petitioner-Corporation as far back as in March, 2006 itself. However, petitioner-Corporation claims that it has received the said amount under protest as cost of litigation was not given. It is also submitted that since petitioner-Corporation was constrained to file this writ petition due to non-payment of the dues by the respondents, the latter is duty bound to pay the cost of litigation. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the amount due has already been paid to petitioner-Corporation about five years back when this writ petition was merely one year old. In the said circumstances, there is no occasion for issuing any direction to the respondents to pay the cost of litigation to petitioner-Corporation. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. MPS/ ( S. N.Hussain, J. )