Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Pritish Kumar, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Ajay Kumar Sharma holding brief of Sri Amit Chandra, learned Counsel for the respondents on behalf of respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of present revision, the revisionist challenged the order dated 15.07.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge III (Senior Division), Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 326 of 2000 Punjab National Bank v. Magnoo Jha by which the revisionist -defendant application (numbered as C -47) Order IX Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. Sri Pritish Kumar, learned Counsel for the revisionist while assailing the said order submits that the Punjab National Bank -plaintiff -respondent No. 1 has initially filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,37,795.99/ - registered as Regular Suit No. 326 of 2000 Punjab National Bank v. Magnoo Jha before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow and now the same has been transferred to the court of Additional Civil Judge III (Senior Division), Lucknow which is pending. In the said Suit revisionist was impleaded as defendant No. 1.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist further submits that in the said Suit, an application has been moved by the revisionist -defendant under Order IX Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure which was numbered as (application No. C -47) and the same has been rejected by the court below solely on the ground taking into consideration the law as laid down in the case of Prahlad Singh v. Niyaz Ahmad and Ors., 2000 AWC 1721.;