Arun Kumar Goel, J. : Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent the matter is being finally disposed of.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that for the purpose of present revision petition, the presence of respondents no.2 to 6 is not required. In these circumstances the matter is being taken up for final disposal in the absence of said respondents, who are neither necessary nor proper parties for the present revision petition.

3. Vide impugned order, petitioner No.2 Satya Parkash Sood who is sole v proprietor of petitioner No. 1 has been ordered to be sent to civil prison on the submissions of learned counsel for respondent-Bank that unless the petitioner is sent to civil prison, he will not deposit outstanding money from other benami sources. This prayer of respondent No. 1-Bank has been found to be just, fair and genuine and therefore in exercise of powers vested under Order 21 Rule 30 CPC, the petitioner was ordered to be detained in civil prison for which purpose warrant has been ordered to be issued by the trial court. It is against this part of the order that the petitioner is aggrieved and has filed the present revision pet