1. This revision application has been filed by the non-applicant No.1 against the order dated 5.5.2005 passed by First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in MJC No. 3/2004 whereby learned Additional District Judge allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Order 9 Rule 9 read with section 15i of CPC set-aside the orders dated 16.12.2003, 23.8.2001 and restored the Civil Suit No. 3A/96 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.2.1997.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of respondent No. 1- Late Shri Shankar Lal filed a suit for partition in the year 1955 vide Civil Suit No. 11/55 which was decreed on 10.7.1978. In First Appeal No. 60/78, judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and suit was remanded back to the trial Court by order dated 30.9.1991. Agaisnt the order of remand LPA No. 32/91 was filed by the father of respondent No. 1. On 24.2.1997 an application was filed on behalf of Shankar Lal for withdrawal of LPA No. 32/91. The LPA was dismissed as withdrawn on the same date i.e. 24.2.1997. On 28.2.1997 another application was filed for withdrawal of civil suit by the father of respondent No. 1 (Shankar Lal). Civil Suit No. 3A/76 was dismissed as withdrawn on the same date i.e. 8.2.1997. On 11.8.1998 father of respondent No.1 Shankar Lal died.

3. The respondent No.1 on 2.9.1998 filed an application for recalling the order dated 24.2.1997 passed in LPA No. 32/91. It is alleged that after LPA No. 32/91 was filed and notices were issued an application dated 3.2.1997 was filed on behalf of the late Shankar Lal which bears the signature of Shankar Lal by his counsel Shri J.P. Sharma. In the application Shankar Lal's signature has been identified by Shri S.C. Goyal, Advocate. It as contended that the application does not bears signature of Shankar lal and there is forgery of signature. This Court found that Shri J.P. Sharma. Advocate who subsequently appeared in the case has not sought no objection from the previous counsel and filed the application for withdrawal of LPA. This Court also found that even -on perusal of other signatures on the memo of appeal as well as Vakalatnama and other applications there appears to the forgery in the signature of Shankarlal. Due to the aforesaid reasons the Division Bench of this Court condoned the delay and recalled the order dated 24.2.1997 passed in LPA No. 32/ 91. The Division Bench of this Court further directed the Registrar to file a complaint against Shri J.P. Sharma and Shri S.C. Goyal, Advocates and Dwarika Prasad appellant in this revision for initiating criminal proceedings.

4. Shri J.P. Sharma and Shri S.C. Goyal, Advocates challenged the order dated 10.1.2005 passed in MCC No. 371/95 by filing Special Leave Petition No. 1546/05. The Hon'ble Apex Court passed the following order while dismissing the Special Leave Petition:

"Permission to file SLP is granted:

We see no reason to interfere.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed save and except we clarify that the observations of the High Court shall not be taken into consideration in any proceedings."

From the perusal of the order, it is crystal clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the order dated 10.1.2005 passed by the Division Bench directed, not to initiate any criminal proceedings against Shri J.P. Sharma and Shri S.C. Goyal, Advocates."

5. On 17.8.2005, LPA No. 32/91 was dismissed in the light of the judgment of apex Court in the case of Jamshed N. Guzdars v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (1) JLJ 358 = 2005 (2) SCC 591] by holding that now Letters Patent Appeal are not maintainable. The respondent No.1 thereafter filed SLP No. 1043/05 before the apex Court against the judgment and order dated 30th September 1991 passed in First Appeal No. 60/78. The apex Court by order dated 21.11.2005 dismissed the Special Leave Petition and directed for expediting the trial. After dismissal of SLP the order of remand dated 30.9.1991 passed in FA No. 60/78 is