Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The present revision application is directed against the order dated 16-3-1990 passed by the subordinate Judge, katihar in Misc. Case No.61 of 1989 whereby and where under, the Miscellaneous application, filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order IX rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code has been disallowed. The petitioner filed Money suit No.40 of 1984 in the court of subordinate Judge, Katihar for realisation of a sum of Rs.21, 608-65 P. being substanding dues of loan taken by opposite party No.1 on the guarantee of opposite party No.2. 2. It appear that on the application of the plaintiff-petitioner the process was ordered to be served as per the Order V, Rule 20 of the C. P. C. and the plaintiff was directed to take necessary steps and file requisites. The last date fixed for the said purpose was 30th August, 1989. It is claimed that on the said date a petition for time was filed on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner on the ground that requisite for filing could not be prepared since the Branch,manager of the petitioner-bank had gone to Purnea a day earlier and could not return till date. The said petition was rejected and the suit was dismissed for default. 3. Thereafter, an application under order IX Rule 4, C. P. C. . was filed for restoration of the said suit, which was registered as Misc. Case No.61 of 89. The said Miscellaneous application was disallowed vide the impugned order. The present revision application was also filed much after the statutory period of limitation. However the limitation was condoned by order dated 29-1-1991. The only plea taken in the revision application is that the plaintiff petitioner Bank was not informed about the progress of the auit despite several requests. At the same time, it is also claimed that the petitioner used to contact his learned Advocate from, time to time to know about the progress of the suit. 4. It appears from the impugned order, the correctness of which has not been challenged in the revision application, that earlier vide order dated 16-7-1986 the process was ordered to be served as per Order V, Rule 20 C. P. C. and the plaintiff-petitioner was directed to take necessary steps for filing rguisites. 4. It appears from the impugned order, the correctness of which has not been challenged in the revision application, that earlier vide order dated 16-7-1986 the process was ordered to be served as per Order V, Rule 20 C. P. C. and the plaintiff-petitioner was directed to take necessary steps for filing rguisites. Since then, the suit was pending for filing of requisites, but when the plaintiff failed to comply with the order, the suit was dismissed for default on i9-4-1988. 5. Thereafter, a Misc, case No 9/88 was filed, which was allowed and the suit was restored to its original file and number. After restoration of the suit several reminders were given to the plaintiff for filing requisites as per order dated 15-7-1986, but the plaintiff did not file the requisites. Even on the last date, i. e.30th August, 1989 only a petition was filed seeking time for the said purpose, as already mentioned above. 6. In my opinion, in the circumstances, afore mentioned, the learned subordinate Judge has rightly the requisites for filing could not be prepared siace the Branch Manager of the petitioner had gone to purnea a day earlier and could not return. The said ground has rightly not appealed to the learned subordinate Judge specially when several reminders were given right from 16-7-1986. It is also difficult to accept that the plaintiff petitioner was not informed about the progress of the suit in spite of several requests, which led to its dismissal for default. Earlier also, the suit was dismissed for default and on the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner it was restored. Thus, it cannot be expected that the plaintiff-petitioner did not have the knowledge of the orders passed by the learned subordinate Judge for the filing of requisites under order V, Rule 20, C. P. C. The money Suit is of the year 1984 and if in such case of gross negligence liberal attitude is shown, then the Bank, on whose behalf several suits have been filed and are pending, would take it for guaranted that even if the default are committed by them, the suit will be restored. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances aforementionnd, in my opinion, the plaintiff-petitioner has not been also to make out sufficient cause for their failure in taking necessary steps by filing requisites for the purpose of issue of summons. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances aforementionnd, in my opinion, the plaintiff-petitioner has not been also to make out sufficient cause for their failure in taking necessary steps by filing requisites for the purpose of issue of summons. Nonetheless, in my opinion, the suit remained pending on account of gross laches and default on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner since 1984. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order in exercise of the revisional power of this Court and the revision application is thus, dismissed, but without costs. Revision dismissed.