IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW No.146 of 2009 Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway Kolkatta. …….Respondent-Petitioner Versus Akhtari Begum wife of late Md. Anwar R/o Village Nicha Howrah, P.O. Kumardhubi, P.S. Cherkunda, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ….Appellant-Opposite party. For the petitioner : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate. For the opposite party : None. ----------- 07/ 16.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 01.08.2007 by which a Bench of this court had allowed M.A. No.414 of 2005 and directed the respondent of the miscellaneous appeal, who is the review petitioner, to pay the compensation amounting to Rs.4,00,000.00 (Rupees four lacs) to the appellant within three months failing which the respondent would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum with effect from the said order till its realisation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stamp reporter has noted that the miscellaneous appeal was not maintainable, whereafter a Bench of this court vide order dated 05.10.2005 had directed that the question of maintainability shall be considered at the time of hearing of the miscellaneous appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but at that time the said question of maintainability was not considered and the miscellaneous appeal was allowed. It is also claimed by learned 2 counsel for the petitioner that no notice was sent to the respondent in the miscellaneous appeal and the counsel, who argued the case on behalf of the respondent authority, was not given any vakalatnama, and hence the said order under review is not sustainable in law. He also states that there are several mistakes in the said order due to which the same is fit to be set aside. 4. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that vide stamp report dated 01.10.2005 the office had noted that the said miscellaneous appeal was not maintainable as it was filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, although the proper remedy was to file a miscellaneous appeal under section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Thereafter by order dated 05.10.2005 a Bench of this court directed that “defect pointed out by the stamp reporter will be considered at the time of hearing this appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC”. However, it transpires that thereafter the said defect was removed by learned counsel for the appellant who changed the provisions of law to section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987. Hence when the case was taken up for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 01.08.2007 no such defect regarding maintainability existed and the learned Single Judge had no occasion to mention anything on the question of maintainability as mentioned above. 5. So far the question of absence of any notice to the respondent, namely the Union of India through the General Manager 3 Eastern Railway Kolkatta is concerned, it is quite apparent that Mr. Bhupendra Narayan Yadav was admittedly the retained counsel of the said respondent in this High Court when the case was filed and a copy of the miscellaneous appeal was duly served upon him on 28.09.2005, whereafter he argued the case on behalf of the said respondent on 01.08.2007 and only after hearing him the said order was passed in the miscellaneous appeal. In the said circumstances, admittedly the retained counsel of the respondent was noticed and was heard. Whether the said counsel should have obtained vakalatnama and instructions from the respondent before appearing in the case, was the question with respect to the internal arrangement of the respondent and the court had nothing to do with it and thus when retained counsel for the respondent appeared and argued there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to disbelieve him and stop him from arguing. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the said order under review nor does it find any fresh material to take a different view. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order before an appropriate forum. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)