- (1.) THIS is an applica­tion for recall of the ex-parte order dated 6.3.2009 passed by this Court. Present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.2.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Malihabad (Sen­ior Division), Lucknow by which applica­tion for temporary injunction has been allowed. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant, ex-parte interim order dated 6.3.2009 was passed. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order present appli­cation has been moved for recall of the stay order.
(2.) IT has been submitted by Sri P.C. Aganval, learned Counsel for the respondents that in the formal order names of the parties have been given along with Regular Suit No. 78 of 2009. The submission of Sri P.C. Agarwal is that he had filed a caveat on 25.2.2009. The appeal was passed by the Stamp Reporter on 4.3.2009 but it does not indicate with regard to filing of the caveat in the registry of the Court. It has been further submitted by Sri P.C. Agarwal that in the regular suit the name of the appellant has been used as Dharmendra Pratap Singh. The prefix 'Maharaja" is missing. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the appellant to use the same name as was indicated in the plaint in its letter and spirit. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties with regard to slackness on the part of the Stamp Reporter, on 30.3.2009, we had directed the Joint Registrar (List­ing) to submit a report. The Joint Registrar (Listing) submitted his report on 1.4.2009 after making necessary enquiry. It has been stated by the Stamp Clerk that when the present appeal was seen in the computer it had not indicated with regard to filing of the caveat because of use of prefix Maharaja. The mistake occurred due to variation in name of the appellants. How­ever, Joint Registrar (Listing) while submitting his report has indicated that even if, be­cause of use of word 'Maharaja' as prefix, while preferring the present appeal the computer has not shown the name, it was incumbent upon the Stamp Reporting Section to verify the fact with regard to filing of the caveat. It has been submitted by the Joint Registrar (Listing) that while riling caveat the caveator had given regular suit number as well as date of passing of the impugned order. The observation made by the Joint Registrar (Listing) seems to be correct that Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava has not checked the fact with regard to filing of the caveat properly.
(3.) ATTENSION of this Court has been invited towards a judgment of this Court reported in 1993 LCD 486; S.S. Barathokey v. Chairman. U.P. Seeds and Tarai Devel­opment Corporation Ltd.;