G.C. Mital, J. - (1.) THE Insolvency Court passed an order dated 4.5.1985 staying the recovery from the applicants (now Respondents). Later on by order dated 1.8.1985,(sic) the order dated 4.5 1985 was vacated. When order dated 4.5.85 was passed, a civil suit filed by the Petitioner under Order 37 of the C. P. C, for the recovery of Rs. 25,295/ - was pending. In view of order dated 4.5.1985 the proceedings in the suit were stayed After the order dated 4.5.1985 was vacated by order dated 1.8.1985, without loss of time the Petitioner filed an application on 2.8.1985 for revival of the proceedings in the suit in view of the changed circumstances in view of the order dated 1.8.1985. That application has been rejected by order dated 3.8.1986. This is revision against the aforesaid order.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the Court below totally went wrong and did not appreciate the material fact or the changed circumstances in deciding the application. The order which was passed by the Court staying the suit in view of the stay order dated 4.5 1985, could be reconsidered by the trial Court in view of order dated 1.8.1985, and it was not necessary for the Petitioner to have gone up in revision. The application, dated 2.8.1985 should have been treated as a review application or an application under Section 151 C. P. C to recall the earlier order and to proceed with the suit in view of the changed circumstances which has a material bearing in the matter. The Court below has taken too technical a view in the matter which was not permissible on the facts of the case. Before parting, it may be mentioned that Som Parkash had died during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court below and was represented by his widow and two daughters. His sons were already on the record. Out of the widow and two daughters, the widow has been served and all the sons are represented but the two daughters are not represented in this revision. The representation by the sons and the widow of the deceased is sufficient to vouch safe the estate or interest of the deceased and, therefore, the absence of the two daughters is wholly immaterial for this revision and the matter can be decided without they being before this Court.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, this revision is allowed the impugned order of the trial Court is set aside, and a direction is issued to the trial Court to proceed further with the suit with expedition. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.12.1986.;