D. P. Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant No. 1 is a partnership firm while applicants No. 2 and 3 are its partners. It appears that the firm was enjoying a cash credit limit of Rs. 45 lacs with the Central Bank of India, Chowk Branch, Vanarasi. Since the limit fixed by the Bank had exceeded, on a demand of the bank, a recovery certificate dated 13.1.2004 was issued against the applicant but on deposit on certain amounts, the same was withdrawn by the bank on 4.3.2004. However, one of the applicant was arrested in pursuance of the citation leading to the filing of Writ Petition No. 11868 of 2004 wherein the opposite party Nos. 8 and 1 were also parties.

3. A Division Bench by a detailed order dated 22.3.2004, stayed the recovery proceedings against the applicants and directed the release of the applicant No. 2. It is alleged that the said order was passed in the presence of the counsel for the bank but even then the order was served by registered post on the Branch Manager of the Bank, opposite party No. 8, vide covering letter dated 14.5.2004. For convenience, the order of the Division Bench is quoted below :

“We have heard Sri S. D. Singh, lea