Decided on December 07,2004



D.C.Thakur, - (1.) THE claim case of the applicant Bank, which has been previously the suit bearing No. 417 of 1993 (when pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata), should have been disposed of much earlier, because this Tribunal has been able to arrive at the relevant material fact through the cross-examination of the defence witness No. 1, conducted on July 1, 1997 that such application ought to have been disposed of much earlier. But the application, which has been previously the plaint, presented on October 8, 1993, has taken much time in spite of the specific recorded reply made by the said deponent being as follows: "I cannot say the exact date when we obtained the loan from the Bank." to the question specifically put to him.
(2.) The above application could have been disposed of on July 1, 1997 when the defence witness No. 2 replied specifically the following: "I executed certain Banking documents relating to respondent No. 1 firm." During the pendency of the above application, which has been initiated against the five defendants, of which the defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm consisting of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as its constituent partners, one of the contrasting features of the pending application, preferred by the applicant Bank, has come to notice the whereas the defendants have earlier filed one written statement in reply to the plaint presented on October 8, 1993, due to the strange, unknown reason, the said defendants have further presented one written statement before this Tribunal, which is more or less the replication of the earlier written statement, which has been on the record maintained in the present case. To file the written statement in connection with a matter is of course aright of the participating defendants. On this point Sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. (Act No. LI of 1993) is specific; the analogous provisions relating to the above may also be found in Order 8 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), which prescribes under Rule 1 of itself that the impleadcd defendant or defendants may file the written statement in answering to the plaint, the other form of pleading. But there is no law empowering such defendants to file the written statement one after another. The defendants may file an additional written statement with the reasoned permission of the trying Court.
(3.) IN spite of the above written statement, the defendants have made on March 21, 2003 one application for the adjournment of the proceeding scheduled to be held that day .only on the ground of that those defendants wrote one letter on March 20, 2003 to the applicant Bank for settling the account opened in the name of the defendant No. 1. The above application has also been accompanied by one letter written to the said Bank. That day, this Tribunal had been pleased to adjourn the proceeding by its order bearing No. 40 made that day till April 17, 2003 to another day.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.