JUDGMENT McNair, J. - This is an application that an order made by me on the 15th May, 1935, granting leave to the Pioneer Bank, Limited of Comilla to proceed with a suit instituted by them without the leave of this Court in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tipperah be recalled. Apparently, the Steel Construction, Company was directed to be wound up on the 28th November, 1932. On the 1st May, 1933, there was an order staying the winding up, pending composition. On the 5th of June, 1934, Messrs. Ray and Ray were appointed liquidators, and on the 6th of April, 1935, the Pioneer Bank filed a suit in Comilla. Under sec. 171 of the Indian Company's Act, leave should be obtained from this Court before such a suit is filed. 2. On the 15th May, 1935, an application was made before me in chambers, ex parte, by the attorney for the Pioneer Bank for leave to proceed with the suit in Comilla, and I passed orders granting the application. 3. On the 27th May, 1935, an application was made to Mr. Justice Panckridge who is the Judge on the Original Side dealing with Company matters for an order that the Pioneer Bank be restrained from taking any further proceedings in the suit, and an interim order for stay of proceedings was obtained. 4. On the 10th June, 1935, this application for restraining the proceedings was heard by Mr. Justice Panckridge who postponed the further hearing to enable an application to be made to me for having the order of the 15th May, 1935, vacated. 5. Mr. N.C. Chatterji now makes this application on the ground, in the first place, that the application should not have been made to me in the first instance by the attorney but should have been made to the learned Judge to whom the Company matters had been assigned by the Chief Justice. 6. Reference is made to page 381 of the Rules and Orders of this Court and r. 170, Ch. XXXI which provides that-- On the making of an order for the winding up of a Company all suits and proceedings to which the Company is or shall be a party shall be assigned to and placed on the list of the Judge for the time being exercising jurisdiction under the Act in respect of such Company. 7. XXXI which provides that-- On the making of an order for the winding up of a Company all suits and proceedings to which the Company is or shall be a party shall be assigned to and placed on the list of the Judge for the time being exercising jurisdiction under the Act in respect of such Company. 7. There is no doubt that under the orders of the Chief Justice at that time Mr. Justice Panckridge was the Judge who was taking company matters. Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI provides that-- In the High Court all petitions shall be presented and applications made to, and proceedings taken before a Judge in Chambers, and the learned Registrar who was the editor of the Rules and Orders of the Original Side states : In company matters such applications as are ordinarily dealt with in Chambers by the Registrar or Master must be made to one of such officers. Only such applications in Chambers which can only be dealt with by a Judge should be made to the Judge dealing with Company orders. 8. There is no doubt that the general practice is that all matters appertaining to Companies should be dealt with by the learned Judge to whom that business has been assigned, and it is doubtful whether any other Judge has jurisdiction to deal with Company matters. 9. In view of the orders of the Chief Justice assigning the Company work to one particular Judge, in my view only that Judge has jurisdiction to deal with Company matters, although, as urged on behalf of the Bank, the matter may not have been specifically provided for under the Rules and Orders. 10. It is contended for the Bank that the order made by me cannot be recalled, but that view is, in my opinion, erroneous. The order has been drawn up, but has not been completed or filed and it has been definitely laid down by this Court in the case of Sarupchand Hukumchand v. Madhoram Raghumall 28 C W. N. 755 (1924) that an order which has not been perfected may be reconsidered by the learned Judge who made it. 11. The further objection to the order of the 15th May is that it should not have been made ex parte but should have been made on notice to the liquidator. In my opinion, that has been established beyond doubt. 11. The further objection to the order of the 15th May is that it should not have been made ex parte but should have been made on notice to the liquidator. In my opinion, that has been established beyond doubt. It is definitely laid down by the Master of the Rolls Sir George Jessel in Western and Brazilian Telegraph Co. v. Bibby [1880] 42 L. T. 821, that such leave is never given on an ex parte application, and the learned Master of the Rolls refers to the case of Williams v. Bristol Marine and Insurance Co. [1870] 39 L. J. Ch. 504, where Malins, V. C. gave such leave and states specifically that that was against the usual practice. In the circumstances, it appears to me that there is ample ground for recalling the order, but the Bank should in no way be prejudiced in making any further application inasmuch as, to the best of my knowledge, I have never dealt with this matter on the merits, and I do not do so now. The Bank to pay the costs of this application to the liquidator.