Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) In this application the petitioners have prayed for twofold reliefs after disposal of this revisional application. The revisional application was disposed of by an order dated 9.8.2006 passed by Hon'ble Justice Saumitra Sen. By the said order another application being CAN No. 4539 of 2006 filed by the petitioners herein in the said revisional application, was also disposed of by way of rejection.
(2.) The petitioners have prayed for recall of the said order dated 9.8.2006 passed by His Lordship in the instant revisional application. The petitioners have also prayed for an order for conversion of this revisional application to a miscellaneous appeal.
(3.) The circumstances under which such reliefs were claimed by the petitioners, are stated hereinbelow : (A) The opposite parties Nos. I to 4 herein filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming the following reliefs : (a) A decree for declaration for the purported resolution dated 15.11.2001 alleged to have been made by Sadhanasram Seva Samsad is illegal, bad in law and is liable to be delivered up and/or cancelled and the same is not binding upon the plaintiffs. (b) A decree for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to run, administer the plaintiff No. 1 society without causing any interference and/or obstruction by the defendants. (c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents from disturbing and/or causing any obstruction and/or interrupting the functioning of the plaintiff No. I society and/or dealing with the affairs of the plaintiff No. 1 society. (d) Cost of suit with full decree fees. (e) Such further or other relief or reliefs as your honour may deem fit and proper. (B) After filing the said suit the plaintiffs, /opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendants/petitioners, their men and agents from giving effect to the purported resolution dated 15.1 1.2001 allegedly made by Sadhanasram Seva Samsad till the disposal of the suit. (C) The petitioners contested the plaintiffs' said application for temporary injunction by filing objection denying the material allegations made out by the plaintiffs in their plaint. (D) The said application was ultimately disposed of by the learned Trial Judge on contest by an order dated 15.5.2002 vide order No. 21 with the following orders . "Hence ordered that the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying temporary injunction is allowed on contest, but considering the circumstances, without costs. Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo relating to management and functioning of the plaintiff No. 1 as it was before 11.11.2001, till disposal of the suit. (E) Subsequently the plaintiffs /opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modification of the said interim order of injunction as by taking advantage of the operative part of the order relating to status quo prior to 1 1.1 1.2001, the defendants were interfering with the smooth functioning of the said Sadhanasram Seva Samsad and were trying to control the management of Ram Mohan Roy Seminary, Patna through the managing committee duly constituted by the plaintiff No. 1. Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed for a direct prohibitory order of injunction against the defendants of the said suit. (F) The said application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed ex parte by the learned Trial Judge by its order being No. 46 dated 24.1.2006 and such order was passed even without causing service of notice of the said application upon the petitioners herein. By the said ex parte order the order of status quo was modified and the principal defendants were restrained from causing any obstruction or interference to the management and functioning of the plaintiff No. 1 and from controlling and managing the affairs of Ram Mohan Ray Seminary, Patna through the managing committee constituted by the plaintiffs till the disposal of the suit. (G) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the instant revisional application before this Hon'ble Court. (H) During the pendency of the said revisional application certain incidents occurred changing the scenario as the plaintiffs/opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 4 and their men took possession of the institution namely Ram Mohan Ray Seminary, on 17.3.2006 and the petitioner No. 2 herein was removed from the post of Principal from the said institution. Under such circumstances, the petitioners herein filed an application being CAN No. 4539 of 2006 in connection with the said revisional application inter alia praying for the following reliefs : (a) Mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs/ opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 and/or their servants, men, agents and subordinates to hand over possession of the Principal's room situated at premises of Ram Mohan Ray Seminary, Khazanchi Road, Patna to the petitioner No. 2. (b) An order of injunction be passed restraining the plaintiffs/ opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 by themselves or their men, agents and subordinates from causing any hindrance to the petitioner No. 2 in discharge of his duties as Principal of the said Seminary until disposal of the suit. (c) An order of injunction restraining the plaintiffs /opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 by themselves and/or their men, agents. servants and subordinates to deal with any bank account and/or any fund of the said Ram Mohan Ray Seminary and/or to act as signatory to the bank account opened in the name of Ram Mohan Ray Seminary. (I) While considering the petitioners' said application on 9.8.2006, Hon'ble Justice Sen held that the question of the petitioners' dismissal or removal from the post of Principal, in His Lordship's opinion, cannot be the subject matter of the suit as well as the said revisional application. His Lordship further held that if the petitioners feel that they have been wrongfully removed and/or any other legal right has been wrongfully infringed, they are free to take such step as may be permitted by law. His Lordship further made it clear that if the petitioners feel that there has been any violation of any order of the Court in removing the petitioner No. 2 from the post of Principal, appropriate steps may be initiated in accordance with law. (J) The said application being CAN No. 4539 of 2006 was, thus, disposed of by His Lordship on 9.8.2006. While disposing of the said application, His Lordship was further pleased to record in the said order that the revisional application is also disposed of. (K) The petitioners were not happy with such order of disposal of this revisional application as the said revisional application was neither heard on the said date nor the merit of the said application was considered by His Lordship nor the manner of disposal of the revisional application was indicated in the said order. Under such circumstances, the petitioners filed an application for review of the said order in 2007. The said application which was registered as CAN No. 4714 of 2007 stood dismissed for non - prosecution as the petitioner did not want to proceed with the said application for review. (L) Instead of proceeding with the said review application, the petitioners wanted to press the present application in CAN No. 6204 of 2007 which was filed by the petitioners seeking the aforesaid relief.;