JUDGMENT : Heard Shri K. Modhusudon, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Ch. Robinchandra, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents. None appears for the remaining respondents. 2. The instant civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 02/02/2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West in Original (Title) Suit No. 49 of 2012. It is preferred by and on behalf of the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) through its Assistant General Manager (Law), Shri Rolice Sema being authorized and competent to do so. 3.1. Facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of the instant civil revision petition, are that on 24-07-2012 the petitioner undertaking filed an Original (Title) Suit No.49 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West against the respondents for recovery of an outstanding loan amount of Rs.4,97,680/- payable by the respondents with interest as per the terms of the loan agreement and documents executed by them. The prayers in the suit read as under: "I. A preliminary decree ordering that an account be taken of what is due to the plaintiff at date of passing such a decree for: (a) A sum of Rs. 4,97,680/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty) only which is inclusive of the principal and interest calculated upto 31st May 2012. (b) The cost of the suit. (c) Interest at the rate of 8.50% per annum and penal interest at the rate of 2.5% per month for the defaulted period which are the contractual rate on the above sum of money as interest pendent lite calculated from 01st June 2012 till full realization and directing the defendants to pay in Court the amount so found due to within a period fixed in this behalf. II. A Final Decree for sale of the mortgaged property described in the Schedule along with the building and structures thereon in the event of the Defendants failing to pay during the fixed period and realization amount from the sale proceeds thereof. III. In case the sale proceeds of the Schedule are found insufficient for realization of the decretal amount, a decree under Order 34 Rule 6 of the C.P.C. IV. A Decree for attachment before judgment of the immovable property which are mortgaged as detailed in the schedule. III. In case the sale proceeds of the Schedule are found insufficient for realization of the decretal amount, a decree under Order 34 Rule 6 of the C.P.C. IV. A Decree for attachment before judgment of the immovable property which are mortgaged as detailed in the schedule. V. Any other relief/s which the plaintiff is entitled to under the law and equity.” 3.2. After the summons having been properly served upon them, the respondents entered appearance and while the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 filed their written statement, the Respondent No.1 did not file his written statement but later, filed an application praying for allowing him to pay 75% of the loan amount. 3.3. On the basis of the said pleadings and documents filed by the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West framed the following issues: I. Whether the defendant No.1 avail a housing loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only from the plaintiff under the terms and conditions of the HUDCO Niwas Scheme nor not? II. Whether the defendants defaulted in repayment of the loan amount or not? III. Whether the plaintiff paid proper court fees or not? IV. Is there any cause of action for filing the suit or not? V. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed if so, what will be the appropriated mode of granting the reliefs claimed? 3.4. Despite notice being served upon the Respondent No.1, he failed to appear before the Court on several occasions as a result of which, the matter was proceeded ex-parte on many occasions. The Respondent No.1 kept on filing applications for setting aside the ex parte orders with the result that the suit was pending several years before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West. On 29/06/2013, the Respondent No.1 filed an application praying for allowing to pay 75% of the capital amount and to exempt the interest amount which was not accepted by the petitioner undertaking by way of filing an objection. 3.5. The petitioner undertaking could not take part in the court's proceedings except on some occasions and could not meet its counsel regularly. The petitioner undertaking was represented by its counsel who was requested to inform it as and when its presence was required in the court. 3.5. The petitioner undertaking could not take part in the court's proceedings except on some occasions and could not meet its counsel regularly. The petitioner undertaking was represented by its counsel who was requested to inform it as and when its presence was required in the court. The petitioner's counsel and his associates acceded the request with the assurance that they would inform the petitioner undertaking as and when its presence was required and accordingly, it did not meet its counsel every now and then. But it did enquire, from time to time, through telephone as well as sending its staff about the development in the case. To its utter shock and surprise, the petitioner’s counsel, without information or intimation, had accepted certain amount deposited by the Respondent No.1 before the Court and after deducting his fees of Rs.15,000/-, he deposited a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- to the petitioner’s office at Imphal. The petitioner never authorized its counsel for such settlement and withdrawal of the said suit. Since its counsel had not pressed the suit further without getting the reliefs sought for by it, the suit was disposed of as not pressed vide impugned order dated 02-02-2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal West. 3.6. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the instant civil revision petition has been filed on the inter-alia grounds that while passing the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Judge has failed to follow the procedure enshrined in the CPC; that in terms of Section 89 of the CPC which is mandatory, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division ought to have informed the parties for the terms of the settlement and ought to have given time for their observations; that the petitioner undertaking was never informed by its counsel about such settlement/ compromise prior to disposal of the case and that the learned Civil Judge failed to grant contractual interest resulting in the denial of the reliefs sought for in the plaint. No affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents was filed. 4. On 11-05-2018 when the matter came up for consideration, a prayer was made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner to seek instruction in the matter. No affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents was filed. 4. On 11-05-2018 when the matter came up for consideration, a prayer was made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner to seek instruction in the matter. Further time was sought for by the counsel appearing for the petitioners on two occasions so as to enable him to file an additional affidavit which was filed on 11-07-2018 enclosing therewith a copy of the complaint dated 12-06-2018 addressed to the Chairman, Bar Council of Manipur. On 26-07-2018 this Court issued notice to the respondents and on receipt of the notice, the respondent No.1, 4 & 5 entered appearances. On 21-01-2019 this court passed an order directing the Secretary, Bar Council of Manipur to submit a report in respect of the said complaint. A report was submitted by the Secretary, Bar Council of Manipur to the effect that after the matter was placed before the Disciplinary Committee on 17-01-2019, notices had been sent to the complainant ant he respondents for appearing before it on 08-02-2019. 5. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Yasangi Venkateswara Rao, (1999) 2 SCC 375 , Shri K. Modhusudon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West, without following due procedures as provided in Section 89 of the CPC, allowed the proposal made by petitioner's counsel; that the Court ought to have formulated the terms of settlement keeping in mind the interest chargeable in terms of the loan agreement and that on account of the proposal made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner without any authority which learned Civil Judge accepted, the petitioner suffered a loss of huge amount. On the other hand, Shri Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, has submitted that although the claimed amount was Rs.4,97,680/-, a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- was paid in the year, 2013 and after further amount of Rs.2,70,000/- being paid, the total amount came to be Rs.5,15,000/- only. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in accepting the proposal made by the petitioner’s counsel. In order to support of his contention, he has upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahadagonda Ramgonda Path & ors Vs. Sripal Balwant Rainade & ors, (1988) 3 SCC 298 . 6. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in accepting the proposal made by the petitioner’s counsel. In order to support of his contention, he has upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahadagonda Ramgonda Path & ors Vs. Sripal Balwant Rainade & ors, (1988) 3 SCC 298 . 6. There can be no dispute as regards the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions but since the facts of those cases are not similar to that of the present case, the same will have no application. The contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the proposal made its counsel was without any authority and that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division accepted without following the procedure prescribed in Section 89 of CPC. His contention appears to be correct for the reason that there is no material on record to controvert it and moreover, the fact that the petitioner has lodged a complaint with the Chairman, Bar Council of Manipur against its counsel, shows that no authority was given to its counsel by the petitioner to come to a settlement. It is thus clear that the basis on which the impugned order was passed, is improper or for that matter, without any authority or instruction from the petitioner, the impugned order itself will be rendered bad in law on the principle that if the foundation is removed, the structure/ building built thereon will automatically stand collapsed. This is what has happened exactly in the present case. 7. In view of the above, the instant civil revision petition is allowed and consequently, the Original (Title) Suit No.49 of 2012 shall stand restored to its earlier position. Let the said suit be listed before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal-West on 09-09-2019 for further proceedings and the parties are directed to appear the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal-West on the said date.