INDER MOHAN DHAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned counsel for the respondents, in extenso.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30.12.2002 drawn by learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1345/2002, whereby the Order dated 30.5.2002 has been vacated.

(3.) MR . Sethi learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted at the threshold that no request was ever made before the learned Single Judge for the vacation of the order, which was operating in his favour. On going through the aforesaid order, the intention of the learned Single Judge is manifestly discernible that order dated 30.5.2002 was vacated on the sub -mission of respondent's advocate, though on account of typographical error, the word 'counsel for the petitioner' is recorded. This is further evident and spelt out from the penultimate lines of the said order, where the scope has been left for the appellant/writ petitioner to approach the Court again, if there arises any cause.