Arun Kumar Dutta J.
1. By this application the Petitioner/ Opposite Party No. 1/Respondent, Financier, has prayed the Court for vacation and/or modification of the
interim order passed on 6th December. 1995, which was extended by the subsequent order dated. 18.1.96 passed in the matter, for the reasons
stated therein. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned Advocates for both sides and perusal of the materials on record as also the aforesaid
two relevant orders passed by this Court. I find that the Court by the order dated 6.12.95 had directed the parties to maintain status quo as
regards the possession of the vehicle in question as of date till two weeks after the vacation with liberty to apply for extension of the interim order
on the self-same application upon notices to the Respondents. The interim order so passed by the said order appears to have been subsequently
contended by the subsequent order dated 18th January, 1996. It is contended by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No. I/Respondent that the
Petitioner in the main revisional application had obtained the extension of the Inter fun order passed on 6.12.95 without notice to him in terms of
the Court''s earlier order dated 6.12.95. The learned Advocate for the Opposite Party in the instant application submits, that with regard to the list
published on 18th January, 1996 that the instant matter had appeared for orders (Extension) suggesting that notice was given to the petitioner
herein for extension of the interim order granted on 6.12.95. But mere appearance of the matter in the list of 18th January, 1996, to my judgment
does not seem to me to amount to compliance with the Court''s relevant order dated 6.12.95, wherein it was specifically in directed that the
Petitioner was given liberty to apply for extension of the interim order granted thereunder on the self same application on the specific direction that
it should be upon notice to the Opposite Parties.
2. From the affidavit-of-service filed by the Opposite Party herein, it would oddly appear that a notice shall was serve upon the Petitioner herein
by the letter dated 4.1.96 communicating the court''s aforesaid earlier order dated 6.12.95 and sending therewith the copy of the application for
condonation of delay as also the instant revisional application. That notice could not clearly be deemed to be a notice seeking extension of the
interim order in terms of the Court''s aforesaid order dated 6.12.95.
3. With things as they are it clearly appears to me that the Opposite Party had obtained extension of the interim order granted on 6.12.95 on
18.1.96 without notice to the Opposite Parties.
4. That being so, the interim order passed on 6.12.95, which was subsequently extended on 18.1.96 without notice to the Opposite Parties, could
not clearly stand any further.
5. In the premises ''above, the instant application filed by the Petitioner be allowed and the interim order passed on 6.12.95, subsequently
extended by the order dated 18.1.96 be vacated. If any application for urgent Xerox certified copy of this order is sought for by any of the parties,
the Department shall cause the same to be supplied at the earliest.
