IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1121 of 2008 RAGHU NATH SAH & ORS Versus NANDU SAH ----------- 3 12.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. This court would find that in the impugned order there is an apparent error on the face of the record inasmuch as the Court below has proceeded on an assumption that it had already passed an order of attachment on 8.4.2005 and further on 4.6.2005. Counsel for the petitioners with reference to the aforementioned two orders would contend that as a matter of fact neither on 8.4.2005 nor on 4.6.2005 any such order of attachment was passed. Counsel for the petitioners seems to be correct. The order of 8.4.2005 and 4.6.2005 reads as follows:- “mHk; i{kksas dh gktjh nh x;h gS k enh muds rjQ ls LFkku vkns’k ykus gsrq vkosnu fn;k x;k gSa k dk;kZy; vVSpesUV gsrq vfxze dk;Zokgh djsa k fnukad 29.4.05 okLrs vxzhe dk;Zokgh k g0 vLi’V lc tt-1 fMdzhnkj dh vksj ls gkftjh nh x;h k enh0dh vksj ls gktjh nh x;h k uksfV’k 21 :y 54 dk rkfeyk izkIr gS k fMdzhnkj rkfeyk ds leFkZu esa ’kiFk irz nkf[ky djrs gS k fMdzhnkj ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lwuk k fMdzhnkj izksiVh vVSp djus ds izfr izkslsl djus dk LVsi yasos k - 2 - fnukad 2.7.2004 okLrs fMdzhnkj }kjk izksiVh vVSp ds izkslsl dh dkjZokbZ gsrq k” g0 vLi’V lc tt-1 It thus becomes clear from the perusal of the aforesaid two orders that the Court below has passed the impugned order on a wholly incorrect appreciation of facts which in effect would amount jurisdictional error. That being so this Court would set the impugned order and remit the matter back to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the submissions of both the parties. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)