JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - After disposal of Civil Revision No. 610/91 on 9-7-1993 the present application has been filed with the prayer that the judgment and decree dated 10-11-1992 and 2-12-1992 may be held to be correct and Money Suit No. 7/87 may be directed to be heard and disposed of afresh. Civil Revision No. 610/91 had been filed by the plaintiff against an order of the Subordinate Judge allowing an application for amendment of the written statement. The plaintiff also filed an application seeking transfer of the suit from the Court of the Subordinate Judga, Jagatsinghpur to any other Court at Cuttack which was registered as MJC No. 110/91. Both those applications were disposed of by a common judgment on 9-7-1993. The Court declined to interfere with the order of the Subordinate Judge allowing emendment of the written statement but had directed that amount of Rs. 10 0/- should be paid to the plaintiff within four weeks from the date of the order. But the prayar for transfer of the suit from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur to any Court at Cuttack was allowed on the ground of convenienca taking into account the intricate questions of law involved and that the ex parte legal advice available at Cuttack and no objection was filed by the Paradeep Port Trust who had entered appearance in the proceeding as early as 19-9-1992. This Court directed that the records might be sent to the 1st. Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack who should try and dispose of M. S. No. 7/87 which was pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur. The present application was filed alleging that on expiry of four weeks from the date of disposal of the Civil Revision when the petitioner made enquiries from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur that the suit had been heard on 19-10-1992 and judgment had been delivered on 18-11-1992 dismissing the suit and decree had been drawn up on 2-12-1992. It is alleged in the application that during the pendency of Civil Revision No. 610/91 this Court on 13-9-1991 had passed an order in Misc. It is alleged in the application that during the pendency of Civil Revision No. 610/91 this Court on 13-9-1991 had passed an order in Misc. Case No. 970/91 staying further proceedings in M. S 7/87 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur and the said order for stav was received by the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghour on 3-10-1991 as is apparent from Order No. 120 but notwithstanding the aforesaid stay order the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur disposed of the suit on 18-11-1992 dismissing the same and decree was drawn up on 2-12- 1992 and, therefore, the judgment and decree passed in the suit are nullity, 2. In view of the assertion of the petitioner in his application which was registered as Misc. Case No. 259 93 with rsgard to order No. 120 of the Subordinate Judge. Jagatsinghpur the records of the entire Money Suit was called for. The First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack also wrote a letter to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Orissa, on 25-8 1993 stating therein that the records of MS No. 7/87 had bean received by him from the Subordinate Judge Jagatsinghpur on transfer for disposal bus on perusal of the records it appears that the suit in question had been disposed of on contest on 18-11-1992 and decree has bean drawn up and sealed on 2-12-1992. 3. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner himself filed an affidavit in this Court on 12-10-1993 stating therein that he had reminded Mr. B. K. Patnaik and Mr. P. K. Choudhury, the learned counsel for defendant-opposite party on 8-8-1993 that the time for payment of cost as directed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 610/91 was about to expire and Mr. Patnaik told him that he should keep a receipt ready and the cost awarded by the Court would be paid shortly, Thereafter Mr. Mukherjee called his clerk to find out whether the records have been received by the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack or not and the Clerk informed him that the suit had already been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur during the pendency of the Civil Revision. Mr. Mukherjee further stated on oath : "I then personally verified the records in the Court of the 1st, Addl. Mr. Mukherjee further stated on oath : "I then personally verified the records in the Court of the 1st, Addl. Subordinate Judge, Cuttack and found that the Sub- Judge, Jagatsinghpur had passed an order in the Order Sheet on 3-10-1991 clearly mentioning that the order granting stay of further proceedings in the suit had been received by him . The intimation sent from this Hon'ble Court communicating the stay order was also in the record. I noted down the order in my own handwriting in a piece of paper and advised the client to file the application in this Hon'ble Court for appropriate direction to the trial Court to ignore the order dismissing the suit. That the order dated 3-10-1991 now available in the case record was not there when I had seen the records in the Court of the Additional Sub-Judge, Cuttack. The order No. 120 dated 3-10-1991 in the lower Courts's records as available now is totally different from the order which I had seen earlier. I have no hesitation to state that the order sheet maintained in the suit has been tampered with. In view of this assertion of a senior member of the Bar of this Court the then Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur who has been posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalahandi in the meantime was called upon to explain as to how he could dispose of the matter notwithstanding the order of stay of further proceeding in suit in G. R. No. 610/91. Since the stay order was passed by this Court in Revision in presence of the counsel appearing for the Paradeep Port Trust, it was called upon to file an affidavit as to whether it knew of the order of stay that was passed on 13-9-1991 and whether they had communicated the same to their lawyer at Jagatsinghpur who had argued the same on 19-10-1992. On behalf of Paradeep Port Trust an affidavit has been filed being sworn to by one Hemant Kumar Mohanty, Deputy Secretary (Law), Paradeep Port Trust who was looking after the case before the High Court as well as before the trial Court. On behalf of Paradeep Port Trust an affidavit has been filed being sworn to by one Hemant Kumar Mohanty, Deputy Secretary (Law), Paradeep Port Trust who was looking after the case before the High Court as well as before the trial Court. He has stated on oath that their records did not disclose that any intimation was received from Sri P. K. Choudhury, Advocate for Paradeep Port Trust that Hon'ble High Court had directed stay of further proceedings in M.S. 7/87 and he had not been personally informed about such orders of stay. He also stated that no information was available if any other officer of Paradeep Port Trust was informed about such order of stay and no intimation from Paradeap Port Trust was sent to Sri R. K. Khatua, Advocate of Paradeep Port Trust at Jagatsinghpur giving intimation of such stay. He further stated that on enquiry from Shri Khatua he learnt that he did not receive any intimation either from Paradeap Port Trust or from Advocate Sri P. K. Choudhury or otherwise of any stay of the said suit having been directed by this Hon'ble Court. 4. The Subordinate Judge has stated in his explanation that in Civil Revision No. 370/91 the High Court had stayed further proceedings in M. S. 7/87 and the stay order had been duly communicated to the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur and order No. 117 dated 17-6-1991 clearly mentions of the same. The suit had been adjourned from time to time awaiting orders of the Hon'ble Court in G. R. 370/91. The Subordinate Judge received intimation of dismissal of G R, 370/91 on 8-11-1991. But though High Court in the meantime had entertained another Civil Revision being G. R. 610/91 and had passed an interim order on 13-9-1991 but the said order had not been communicated. Since the suit was pending for a long time and no further order of stay had been received from the High Court, on receipt of intimation about dismissal of Civil Revision No. 370/91 he disposed of the Money Suit not being aware of the order of stay on 13-9-1991 passed in G. R. 610/91. The allegation of tampering of records was denied. 5. The allegation of tampering of records was denied. 5. The records of the Civil Revision No 610/91 clearly indicate that the stay order passed on 13-9-1991 was communicated to the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur under Memo No. 9354 dated 25-9-1991 but there is no such memo available in the records of the Money Suit. Even after a thorough search of the entire records through the office, I have not been able to find out document intimating the aforesaid communication of the order of stay passed in G. R 610/91. But there is no dispute that the aforesaid order was passed in presence of the counsel appearing for the defendant opposite party who has all along been contesting in this Court even in earlier revision (G. R. 370/91). 6. The records of the Civil Revision No. 3/0/91 indicates that in that revision which had been filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur dated 31-1-1991 this Court had passed an order staying further proceeding in MS 7/87 on 14-5-1991 and the lower Court records were called for. But that revision was dismissed as not pressed on 13-9-1991 and after dismissal of the Civil Revision the lower Court records in M. S. 7/87 which had been called for to this Court were sent to the Subordinate Judge along with copy of the order dated 13-9-1991 passed in G. R. 370/91. It is thus clear that the Subordinate Judge received the records of M. S. 7/87 after dismissal of G. R. 370/91 and then ultimately disposed of the suit when no order of stay had been communicated though such an order had been passed in G. R. 610/91 and the records of this Court in G. R. 610/91 indicate that the order of stay had been communicated to the Subordinate Judge. G. R. 610/91 was ultimately heard and disposed of on 9th July. 1993 transferring the suit from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur to the Subordinate Judge. Cuttack and directing that the defendant should pay a cost of Rs. 1000/- to the plaintiff for amendment of the written statement which had been allowed by the Subordinate Judge. It is in this context the present application filed by the plaintiff petitioner has to be disposed of with appropriate directions. 7. Cuttack and directing that the defendant should pay a cost of Rs. 1000/- to the plaintiff for amendment of the written statement which had been allowed by the Subordinate Judge. It is in this context the present application filed by the plaintiff petitioner has to be disposed of with appropriate directions. 7. The undisputed position that emerges is that the plaintiff had challenged the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 31-1-1991 in Civil Revision No. 370/91 and in that revision further proceedings in M. S. 7/87 had been stayed by this Court on 14-5-1991. Mr. B. N. Patnaik who was the lawyer for the Paradeed Port Trust had been served a copy of the revision application and the lower Court records had also been called for. Mr. Patnaik entered appearance along with one Mr. P. K. Choudury on 19-6-1991 and contended the proceedings. During the pendency of that revision the plaintiff-petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 610/91 and on very day Civil Revision No. 370/91 was dismissed as not pressed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Pasayat. G. R. 610/91 along with some misc. cases had been listed before him and Mr. B. N Patnaik was representing the defendant Paradeep Port Trust in that proceeding and in Misc. Case No. 970/91 the learned Judge passed order staying further proceedings in M. S. 7/87 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur. Therefore the aforesaid order passed in Civil Revision No. 610/91 was in presence of the counsel appearing for the defendant-Paradeep Port Trust. Though the order sheet of the High Court indicates that the order was communicated to the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur under a particular memo number but the records of the lower Court does not reveal the same and finally the Subordinate Judge disposed of the suit on 18-11-1992. The affidavit filed by the Paradeep Port Trust vaguely indicates that their local counsel at Jagatsinghpur had not been communicated the order of stay that was granted by this Court in Civil Revision No. 610/91. It is indeed surprising to notice that a suit having valuation of Rs. 8,15,504. POP. against the Paradeep Port Trust was dismissed on 18-11-1992 but the counsal appearing for the Paradeep Port Trust never intimated the same in this Court when Civil Revision 610/91 was heard on 9-7- 1993 and judgment was delivered in this Court on that date. It is indeed surprising to notice that a suit having valuation of Rs. 8,15,504. POP. against the Paradeep Port Trust was dismissed on 18-11-1992 but the counsal appearing for the Paradeep Port Trust never intimated the same in this Court when Civil Revision 610/91 was heard on 9-7- 1993 and judgment was delivered in this Court on that date. It is indeed surprising to notice that a Public Sector undertaking like Paradeep Port Trust being represented by a counsel and order of stay of further proceeding in the money suit having been passed in presence of such counsel, yet the same was not conveyed to their local counsel at Jagatsinghpur. The plaintiff-petitioner's counsel is also equally to be blamed since he had also not communicated the same to the local counsel of the plaintiff at Jagatsinghpur. On examination of the order sheet of the Subordinate Judge I find that there has been overwriting from order No. 122 dated 8-11-1991 in respect of subsequent orders up to order No. 143 dated 19-8-1993 which arouses grave suspicion in my mind and establishes interpolation/tampering of order sheets. Even though the factum of communication of order of stay passed in Civil Revision No. 610/91 to the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur has not been established beyond doubt as the relevant memorandum is not available on record. But I am inclined to hold that the Subordinate Judge disposed of the suit carelessly though he had been intimated of the earlier stay order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No, 610/91 and thereafter had got the order sheets tampered with. There is no dispute that the stay order passed by this Court in Civil Revision 610/91 staying further proceedings in M S. 7/87 was in presence of the counsel appearing for the defendant-opposite party. In the aforesaid premises if the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge is permitted to stand on the ground of technicality then there will be gross miscarriage of justice. To assail that decree by way of an appeal would involve huge expenses on the part of the plaintiff though I have no doubt in my mind that under the facts and circumstances such an appeal has to be allowed and the matter has to be re-heard. 8. To assail that decree by way of an appeal would involve huge expenses on the part of the plaintiff though I have no doubt in my mind that under the facts and circumstances such an appeal has to be allowed and the matter has to be re-heard. 8. In the aforesaid cireumststances, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree of of the Subordinate Judge passed in M.S. 7/87 must be held to be a nullity and are accordingly quashed. The money suit in question may now be taken up by the 1st. Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack pursuant to my direction dated 9-7-1993 given in Civil Revision No 610/91 and in M. J. C. No. 140/91. The 1st, Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack may dispose of the suit in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made by me in the aforesaid revision. The sum of Rs. 1000/- which was directed to be paid by the Paradeep Port Trust to the plaintiff may be paid to the plaintiff within four weeks from today if the same has not been paid already. This Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly. The entire records of the Money Suit 7/87 be now remitted back to the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack immediately.