IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.841 of 2008 SHIV SHANKAR LAL & ORS Versus BISHNU KUMAR RAUT & ORS ----------- 3. 5.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff- opposite Ist party of Civil Revision No.493 of 2006 for re-hearing of the said Civil Revision, which was allowed by ex parte order dated 6.2.2008 in favour of the defendant Ist set –petitioner of Civil Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even when an ex parte order is passed in a Civil Revision, the principle laid down under Order 41, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to ex parte judgment passed in an appeal can be applied to Civil Revision even though the rule itself is not per se applicable to a Civil Revision . In support of the said proposition, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Amma Seethamma .v. Aratha Karthy and ors.: A.I.R.1983 S.C.318. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the said matter notices were earlier issued by another learned single Judge of this Court but when the matter was again placed under the heading “For Admission” before the said Bench on 28.3.2007, an order was passed to the effect that since the matter was not tied up one, hence, it should be placed before an appropriate Bench after obtaining the permission from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. It is stated by learned counsel for the present petitioners, who were opposite party Ist set in the 2 Civil Revision, that he had appeared in the case throughout till 28.3.2007 when the aforesaid order was passed. Thereafter, an oral enquiry was made at the end of December, 2007 from the office of this Court about the said case and it was learnt that the case is still pending for admission and to be listed in due course. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that after the matter was transferred from the first Bench, he was expecting the case to be listed in the general matter in the daily cause list. However, when on 4.3.2008 a slip was filed for knowing the position of the case, it was learnt that the matter was listed under the tied up matters on 23.1.2008 and 30.1.2008 in the daily cause list and similarly under the same part of the list on 6.2.2008 when it was disposed of and for the said bona fide reason, he could not mark the case and thus failed to appear at the time of disposal of the matter. Thereafter on 5.3.2008 a Chirkut was filed for obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 6.2.2008 and after taking due steps, the present application has been filed. So far as the question of passing of an order by applying the principles under Order 41 Rule 21 with respect to the ex parte judgment and order in an appeal is concerned, there can hardly be any doubt that this court has jurisdiction to pass similar order in a Civil Revision matter also. However, whether such an order ought to be passed in favour of a person applying for the same depends on the facts of the case. Coming to the facts of the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, in the case of Savitri Amma Seethamma (supra) the application was allowed by the Supreme Court on the 3 ground that learned counsel for the opposite party of the Civil Revision was engaged in another court and thus, he could not be present for arguing the matter when it was taken up and, accordingly, it was held that the same was a good ground for setting aside an ex parte order . In the present matter, the admitted position is that the case was duly listed in the daily cause list of the High Court before this Bench on 23.1.2008, 30.1.2008 and thereafter on 6.2.2008 when the matter was disposed of. This court in its order dated 6.2.2008 has clearly recorded that counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 4 had not appeared on the earlier two dates also when the matter was called out. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that he was expecting the case to be listed in a particular part of the list does not appear to be credible, since it is the normal practice of this court that when the matter is specially assigned, by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, to a particular Bench then it appears as a tied up matter before that Bench itself and accordingly, there was nothing wrong or contrary to the normal practice of this Court when the matter was listed before this Bench under the tied up matters. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present application for recall of the order dated 6.2.2008 passed in Civil Revision No. 493 of 2006. The application is, accordingly, rejected. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)