IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3399 of 2008 CHIEF MANAGER,STATE BANK OF INDIA,ARRAH,DISTRICT BHOJPUR Versus BHAGWAN DASKarta of HUF son of Baidyanath Prasad, resident of Nawadah Chowk,Arrah, P.S. Nawadah Chowk Arrah,P.S.Nawadah,District- Bhojpur. with Civil Review No. 129 of 2000 1.The Chief General Manager,State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Old Judge Court Road,Patna. 2. General Manager, Operation,State Bank of India, Local Head Officer, Old Judges Court Road,Patna. 3. Deputy General Manager,State Bank of India, Frazer Road,Patna. 4. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-V,Frazer Road,Patna. 5. Chief Manager, State Bank of India,Arrah,District-Bhojpur. 6. Branch Manager,State Bank of India,StationRoad,Arrah,District-Bhojpur 7. Branch Manager (SIB),State Bank of India, Main Branch,Arrah,Districtg- Bhojpur. Versus Bhagwan Das,Karta of HUF son of Srti Baidyanath Prasad, resident of Nawadah Chowk,Arrah,P.S.Nawadah,District-Bhojpur. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kr.Singh For the Opp.Party : Mr. Satyabir Bharti. --- 2 5.1.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner , the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, who seeks restoration of Civil Review No. 129 of 2000, which was dismissed for default by order dated 1.9.2008. It is stated that the name of the learned counsel ,representing the petitioner, was not only wrongly printed , it was printed on the column of respondents and accordingly it could not be marked. Considering the said circumstances, the restoration application is allowed and Civil Review No. 129 of 2000 is restored to its original file. - 2 - As parties have appeared, I deem it proper to take up the civil review application itself for disposal with consent of the parties. In the civil review application ,on behalf of State Bank of India ,it is submitted that in the writ petition when it was disposed of ,though there was no counter affidavit, there was an agreement , some of the clauses of which were not noticed by this Court while disposing of the writ petition being CWJC No. 989 of 1996, which was disposed of on 4.11.1996. It is not in dispute that while the writ petition was heard and disposed of on 4.11.1996, all parties were represented and noticing the judgment of the Apex Court and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition was allowed. That was a judgment inter party delivered on 4.11.1996. The review application was filed after four years being Civil Review No. 129 of 2000. The judgment of this Court in the Writ proceedings were not assailed in appeal and as such it attained finality inter party. The ground taken for review including the ground now being urged and the ground that subsequently the Apex Court took a different view of the matter in another case are the grounds not available in the opinion of this Court for review .As pointed above, the remedy was appeal,the judgment having attained finality inter party, in that view of the matter.The civil review application itself is misconceived and dismissed as such. Singh (Navaniti Pd. Singh)