IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.962 of 2006 BHARAT PRASAD GUPTA Versus CANARA BANK & ANR ----------- 3 17.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party. While it is not in doubt that the impugned order, refusing the prayer of the defendant-petitioner to hold that the money suit filed by the plaintiff- Bank stands satisfied inasmuch as the entire amount has been paid by the defendant during the pendency of the suit, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error but at the same time the prayer of counsel for the petitioner that if the entire amount has already been paid no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the suit, definitely needed a serous consideration by the court below. In that view of the matter this Civil Revision application is dismissed but at the same time, in keeping with the findings recorded in last paragraph of the impugned order, the Court below is directed to frame the issues, one of them being as to whether on account of subsequent event the money decree as sought for in the suit stands satisfied on account of payment made by the defendants. The apprehension of the petitioner that while - 2 - adjudicating any of the issues in the suit, the Court below will be governed by any finding arrived in the impugned order seems to be rather misconceived inasmuch as the court below will have to give due regard to the factual matrix, on the issue of satisfaction of the money decree on account of payment made during the pendency of the suit. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)