Decided on August 23,2004



D.C.Thakur, - (1.) FROM the materials on record the application of the applicant Bank filed on May 30, 1997, the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1 on September 14, 2001, the evidence-on-affidavit affirmed by the Manager of the application Bank, which has been filed on August 31, 2001, the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the defendant No. 1 on January 11, 2002 and lastly, one memo filed by the substituted defendants named Shri Tadit Kumar Rout and Shri Ranjit Kumar Rout filed on February 20, 2004 which have been carefully considered, this Tribunal is arriving at a material finding that the claim case of the applicant Bank bearing No. O.A. 61of 2001 which is in fact the renumbering of O.A. 161 of 1998, when it is pending before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal at Patna, is being found in possession the peculiar characteristic features of its own, being mentioned below: (A) In spite of the debt liability being expressly admitted by the defendants (including the substituted defendants) the point of limitation has been harped % the defendants, actively participation in O.A. 161 of 2001. (B) Though it is being revealed from the materials on record that the fact that the applicant Bank has a claim for Rs. 11,59,495/- with interest at the agreed rates against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is not being disputed or controverted by the participating defendant No. 1 on whose behalf the written statement has been, as the form of counter-pleading, presented before this Tribunal, it is being peculiarly urged on behalf of the said defendants that the allegation like putting the signature on the blank papers and other printed forms, practice of fraud on the defendant No. 1, after taking the full advantage of the old age of the said defendant, the alleged deed of acknowledgement and other accompanying documents being fraudulently obtained on March, 11, 1993, from the possession of the said defendant which has been alleged to be taken by the applicant Bank only for the purpose of making alive an excessively lime-barred claim expiring six years before the above day and date, allegation of not obtaining acknowledgement of debt from the defendant No. 2, etc., have taken place in their case. All those have been specifically taken out in the said written statement which is a 'pleading' within the meaning of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908). (C) The further allegation of not obtaining the evidence-on-affidavit from Shri Sarat Chandra Behera, who has actually been found to have verified the application preferred by the applicant Bank against the said defendants under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (Act No. LI of 1993) and the further allegation of the evidence-on-affidavit to be affirmed by Shri Jogeswar Sahu in the capacity of the Manager of the said Bank; all these have been taken specifically in an application preferred by the first defendant in this matter.
(2.) The specific contention raised as regards that the evidence through affidavit is not at all an evidence has also been heard from those defendants. The consequent cross-examination of Shri Jogeswar Sahu as the P.W was conducted by the learned Advocate, appearing for the defendant No. 1, on March 22, 2002.
(3.) NEVERTHELESS, this judicial body has suddenly received the proposal for settlement made on February 20, 2004 by the surviving two sons of the original deceased-defendant No. 1, who are at present the substituted defendant Nos. (a) and (b), to the applicant Bank, according to which those substituted defendants have expressed their eager intention to avail themselves of one time settlement and to settle the disputed accounts after offering an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the Bank which has resulted in fact the clear abandonment of the earlier pleas raised on their behalf.;

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