Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.

1. A Revisional Application being C.O. No. 2021 of 1992, had been moved, challenging Order No. 17, dated 13th August, 1992, passed by the Learned First Assistant District Judge, Hooghly, in Title Suit No. 3 of 1992, wherein, the State Bank of India was the Plaintiff, praying for, inter alia, recovery of money lent and advanced, enforcement of pledge and/or hypothecation/mortgage/guarantees making the revisional petitioner and Opposite Parties 2 to 7 defendants. In course of an application for appointment of receiver in the said suit, a question arose as to who had the authority and right to represent the Defendant No. lithe Revisional Petitioner in the said suit. The Learned Trial Judge held in favour of opposite parties 5, 6 and 7, who were represented by Sri Sanat Kumar Biswas, a Learned Advocate.

2. The said Revisional Application was disposed of, in course of contested hearing on 17 November, 1992, on the basis of an agreed order, virtually, affirming the order, challenged in the Revisional Application with a rider to the effect that the Order, dated 17th November, 1992, would not prevent the parties from moving any other appropriate forum for