JUDGMENT: I.P. MUKERJI, J. 1. IN the above suit (C.S. No. 308 of 2009) an interim application was moved by the plaintiffs on 16th October, 2009 before the Vacation Bench of this Court for certain urgent reliefs. 2. IN that application, on the same day, I passed the following order: "T. No. 67 of 2009 TA. No. 65 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE LOOMTEX ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. and ANR Verses JITENDRA NATH CHAUBEY and ORS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Joy Saha, Advocate. For the Defendant No. 10 : Mr. S.K. Kapoor, Senior Advocate For the Defendant No. 1 : Mr. Jishnu Saha, Advocate For Sarda Brothers : Mr. Utpal Bose, Senior Advocate Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P. MUKERJI Date: 16th October, 2009 (VACATION BENCH) The Court: Leave granted under Section 80 Sub-Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Clause 12 of the Letter's patent. The plaintiff no. 1 is a Company. The plaintiff no. 2 is said to be more than 80% share holder of this company, which fact is very seriously disputed by the respondents. The dispute is about control and management of the company. At this stage it is stated that Mr. Kapoor's clients representing the plaintiff no. 1 are operating a bank account of the company in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gariahat Branch and that there is a credit of about Rs.5 crores in this account recently. IT is alleged that Mr. Kapoor's clients will wrongfully withdraw the same from the account thus depriving the company. At this stage it is not disputed that Mr. Kapoor's clients have been operating the bank account for a substantial period of time. Let this application be returnable before the Regular Bench on 21st October, 2009 subject to the convenience of the Regular Bench. However, let withdrawal from this account be made only in the regular course of business till further orders of this court. All parities concerned are to act on a Xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings. Sd/- I.P. Mukerji" 3. THIS order has become very controversial. In this application, the plaintiff seeks vacation of that order and further orders. This application was filed on 24th August, 2010, after ten months. The plaintiffs seek to explain the delay which I will discuss below. Sd/- I.P. Mukerji" 3. THIS order has become very controversial. In this application, the plaintiff seeks vacation of that order and further orders. This application was filed on 24th August, 2010, after ten months. The plaintiffs seek to explain the delay which I will discuss below. What is not explained is that the interim application on which the order dated 16th October, 2009 was passed, was made returnable before the regular bench on 21st October, 2009. It never appeared before the regular bench nor any steps taken by any party to place the matter before it. Neither has any effort been made to prosecute that application. The whole exercise now, seems to be for discharge of the interim order dated 16th October, 2009. 4. SOME proceedings were being heard by the Division Bench consisting of the then Chief Justice the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohit S. Shah and Pinaki Chandra Ghose J. They were numbered as CAN 205 of 2010 connected with MAT 18 of 2010. I have not been told all the details of the proceedings, but I was shown an order of 1st March, 2010 of that Bench directing the Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gariahat Branch, Kolkata to produce all details of the transactions in Account No. 10691131000716 maintained with them. Now, this was the bank account which was the subject matter of the interim order dated 16th October, 2009. 5. THE Oriental Bank of Commerce by their letter dated 2nd March, 2010 made the disclosure. It appeared from that disclosure that an application was made to the bank on 9th September, 2009 on behalf of Loomtex Engineering Private Ltd, the first plaintiff for opening an account in that bank. The amount initially deposited was Rs.6,000/-. The account was operated by the following persons: Mr. Jitendra Nath Choubey, the first defendant, Mr. Om Prakash Thard, the fourth defendant, Mr. Binay Kumar Trivedi, the fifth defendant, Mr. Mrinmoy Sarkar, the sixth defendant and Mr. Nilkanta Mondol, the seventh defendant. 6. A copy of the Board resolution said to have been adopted by the plaintiff on 9th September, 2009 describing these persons as the directors of the company and authorizing them to operate the bank account, was also produced. One thing was clear that the tenth defendant was not operating the account. Nilkanta Mondol, the seventh defendant. 6. A copy of the Board resolution said to have been adopted by the plaintiff on 9th September, 2009 describing these persons as the directors of the company and authorizing them to operate the bank account, was also produced. One thing was clear that the tenth defendant was not operating the account. Thereafter, it seems that the first plaintiff, on 21st October, 2009 wrote to the bank stating that at a meeting of the Board of Directors held on 19th September, 2009 the plaintiff company had decided to change the persons who were authorized to operate the bank accounts. 7. THE resolution of 19th September, 2009 was also made available by the bank. Out of the directors, Mr. Chaubey, Mr. Sarkar and Mr. Mondal, anybody could operate the account or Mr. Baldeo Das Maloo, the tenth defendant could singly operate the account. 8. THE position is that five days after passing of the order dated 16th October, 2009 the first plaintiff wrote a letter to the bank forwarding a copy of an alleged Board resolution of 19th September, 2009 authorizing the tenth defendant to operate the account. Now comes the problem. In the order dated 16th October, 2009 a learned counsel was shown in the appearance part of the order to represent the tenth defendant, Mr. Maloo. It was stated in the order that since his "clients" were operating the account of the first plaintiff for a longtime, they would continue to operate the account. 9. ACCORDING to the plaintiffs this Board resolution is suspect. At any rate, it was lodged with the bank five days after the above order. At any rate on the date of the order the tenth defendant was not operating the bank account, far less operating it for a longtime. Therefore, the order was on suppression of facts for which reason it should be vacated, according to the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by many learned counsel. Mr. Kar represented the added defendant, Mr. Ghyanshyam Das Sarda. Mr. Jishnu Saha represented the other defendants except the tenth defendant who was represented by Mrs. Manju Agarwal. It was said on their behalf that the order dated 16th October, 2009 was ambiguous. It was recorded in the appearance part that the said learned Counsel was representing the tenth defendant. Mr. Kar represented the added defendant, Mr. Ghyanshyam Das Sarda. Mr. Jishnu Saha represented the other defendants except the tenth defendant who was represented by Mrs. Manju Agarwal. It was said on their behalf that the order dated 16th October, 2009 was ambiguous. It was recorded in the appearance part that the said learned Counsel was representing the tenth defendant. However, in the body of the order the learned Counsel's "clients" were referred to. It was submitted that the said learned Counsel also represented the defendants who were at that point of time operating the bank account. I am unable to accept this submission. The appearance part makes it explicit that a learned counsel was appearing for the first defendant, another for Mr. Ghyanshyam Das Sarda, and the other for the tenth defendant. If the said learned Counsel was appearing for the defendants operating the bank accounts the appearance would show him as leading Mr. Jishnu Saha. Moreover, since the appearance part of the order became so contentious proper steps should have been taken for correction of the order, by the defendants or any of them if they so desired. I will take it as if the learned Counsel represented the tenth defendant and that the word "clients" is to be read as "client". In my judgment on the date of the order dated 16th October, 2009 the tenth defendant did not operate the bank account. It was being operated by the other defendants. This was suppression. If he or other persons started operating the account from and after 21st October, 2009, it was in violation of the order of 16th October, 2009, the tenor of which was continuance of the status quo regarding operation of the account. Even if the contention of the defendants is taken as true the account was not being operated for a longtime at all at the date of the order dated 16th October, 2009, but had been opened on 9th September, 2009 which was quite recent to the date of the said order. This was also suppression. 10. IT was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that at the time of moving of the application in this Court on 16th October, 2009 the account had Rs.5 crores. Now, the entire sum has been drained out of the account. This was also suppression. 10. IT was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that at the time of moving of the application in this Court on 16th October, 2009 the account had Rs.5 crores. Now, the entire sum has been drained out of the account. I have no doubt in my mind that for whatever reason the plaintiffs have slept over their rights. They ought to have been more vigilant in ascertaining who was operating the account and from what point of time, before approaching this court. The plaintiffs also ought to have been vigilant in noticing any change of account operators. They also ought to have been very careful to keep track of moneys which were going out of the account. They did not even take steps to place the interim application in the list as, new motion after the long vacation of 2009. If suppression is alleged, the Court has the power to set-aside the order. In my opinion there has been suppression. 11. THE order dated 16th October, 2009 is thus set-aside. Let the interim order application G.A. 2809 of 2009 be heard on a clean slate. Since a substantial time has elapsed and no steps were taken to enlist this application, let affidavits be exchanged in accordance with the directions below: Affidavit-in-Opposition by 31st August, 2012. List this application on 17th September, 2012. Affidavit-in-Reply may be filed in the meantime. Any further order prayed for is refused. G.A. No. 2794 of 2010 is disposed of by this order. 12. URGENT certified photocopy of this judgment/order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. 13. LATER: I clarify the above judgment and order as hereunder:- I have only decided the issues mentioned in this judgment and order. All other contentions between the parties are kept open.