B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THERE is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has been heard and the matter is being disposed of on merits.

( 2 ) THE petitioner seeks review of the judgment of this Court in C. R. PNo. 786 of 1993 dated 1-7-1994 reported in Srikanth Spinners represented by its Proprietor k. Rajesham Kalakal vs. State Bank of India, Toopran Branch, Gajwel Taluk.

( 3 ) THE grounds on which the review is sought are:- (I) That the learned Advocate for the petitioner could not be present when the matter was taken up for consideration due to illness, to place all the relevant grounds to dispose of the matter; (II) that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mahendra Kumar and another vs. State Bank of Madhya Pradesh and Others and of Orissa High Court in mangulu Pirai vs. Prafulla Kumar Singh and Others and the provisions of order 8 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code were not considered by the court and if so considered, would have led to different results; (III) that the Court has relied upon the precedent of Orissa High Court in kashi Biswanath Dev. vs. Paramananda Routrar, which was overruled by a Division Bench of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document