( 1 ) AS far back as in the year 1982 the plaintiff Bank had instituted this suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of Rs. 21,73,825. The defendants were granted leave to appear and defend the suit and as many as seven issues were framed which read as under:

"1. Was the account in dispute opened by defendant No. 1 under fraud as alleged in the written statement ? 2. Did the defendant No. 1 not receive the amount from the plaintiff-bank as alleged in the plaint? If so to what effect ? 3. Did defendants sign the documents of the transaction in dispute when they were blank ? If so to what effect ? 4. If issues No. 1 to 3 are not proved, what is the amount due to the plaintiff from the defendants ? 5. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties ? 6. Has the suit been instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff-bank and the plaint signed and verified by such person ? 7. Relief. "

( 2 ) AS would be borne out from the issues so framed, it was only Issue No. 6 which was required to be proved by the plaintiff Bank and to do so it examined in affirmative one of its managers Shri H. S. Jolly as PW-1 who proved the power of attorney Ex. P-4 executed by the plaintiff Bank in favour of one Shri Gajinder Singh besides an authorisation letter Ex. P-5. It may be mentioned that the plaint is proved by this witness to have been signed and verified by said Gajinder Singh. After the plaintiff Bank closed its evidence in the affirmative, the defendants were proceeded against exparte. This happened on May 27, 1991. Since the order passed on that day came under fierce attack at the hands of Mr. I. C. Kumar the learned counsel for the defendants, I think I would do well to rather reproduce it. It runs as under:

"the defendants are set down exparte. The plaintiff is granted liberty to file affidavit by way of evidence. Let the case be done within six weeks. List this matter before the Dy. Registrar on 13th September, 1991 for exhibiting the documents. "

( 3 ) CONSEQUENT upon the order of May 27, 1991 the plaintiff bank led evidence in the form of affidavits. On December 29, 1992 the court passed an order fixing the matter for arguments. However, before the arguments could be heard, defendants No. 1 and 2 moved an application under order 9 for setting aside the order for proceeding ex parte. It was dismissed on February 4, 1994. Finding that order as not acceptable, defendants No. 1 and 2 preferred TO an appeal which was dismissed by a Division Bench on May 16, 1994. However, the Division Bench did allow the appellants to cross- examine the deponents subject to payment of costs. The relevant portion of that order runs as under:

"plaintiff in support of its case, on merits has filed affidavits; proceedings are at the stage of arguments, because, no other witness is permitted to be examined by the defendant. A very large amount is claimed against the appellant, in the suit. Having regard to these circumstances, interest of justice could be met, by permitting the appellant to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits, after treating the said affidavits as statements on examination-in-chief. The appellant should be ready to cross-examine the deponents without seeking any further adjournments. Similarly the appellant shall examine its witnesses on a day to be fixed by the learned single judge, and offer them for cross-examination. Any further adjournment at the request of the appellant shall not be granted. in addition to the above conditions, as a condition precedent for reopening the suit, as above, the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 as costs to the plaintiff and this payment shall go to the plaintiff absolutely, irrespective of the result of the suit and it shall not be taken note of while computing the costs in the suit while making the decree. This payment of Rs. 15000. 00 shall be made within two weeks from today.

( 4 ) INSTEAD of paying costs and availi