Decided on July 31,2006



P.K.Deb, - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the above named defendant appellants against the order dated 16th November, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in case No. T.A. 1023 of 1998 whereby the prayer of the respondent Bank for taking some documents on records has been allowed.
(2.) There is chequered history of the case, the respondent Bank had filed the above mentioned case for recovery of non-paid loan amount from the appellants. The appellants had taken the plea that they have never authorised the borrowers for mortgaging their property and as such the Bank cannot proceed with the mortgaged property as security. During the pendency of the case at the instance of the defendants including the appellants some of the Bank officials were cross-examined and then the case was closed and was fixed for judgment on 17th October, 2002 after hearing final argument. Then on 9th October, 2002 the respondent Bank had filed the petition for taking some documents on record regarding the authority of the mortgage but the then Presiding Officer vide order dated 10th October, 2002 disallowed the petition as being not maintainable as the case was closed and fixed for judgment and hence the said petition was asked to be consigned to the record room. Before judgment could be delivered in the case, the then Presiding Officer laid down his office and as such the case could not be finalized. Then it appears that the case was again reopened and was fixed for final argument. Then on 16th March, 2004 the respondent Bank filed the petition for taking on record their previous application dated 9th October, 2002 but the said application was missing from records. However, after taking explanation from the Court Master, the learned Presiding Officer placed the matter for hearing on the petition. The appellants side made objection on the plea that when the earlier petition dated 9th October, 2002 was rejected then the same cannot be reconsidered or reviewed when no appeal had been preferred against the previous rejection order passed on 10th October, 2002. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties learned Presiding Officer by detailed order allowed the prayer of the respondent Bank and hence the present appeal against the impugned order. Mr. Satish Agarwal, Advocate appearing for and on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal had not considered the plea of res judicata as taken by the appellant in their objection and without proper reasons allowed the prayer of the respondent Bank which was once rejected by his predecessor which had a binding effect on him.
(3.) MR. Srivastava, Advocate appearing for and on behalf of the respondent Bank submitted that any document, if not filed at the proper stage, can be accepted by the Court on a later stage, if those documents are found to be vital for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute between the parties. His further submission is that the ingredients of res judicata are not attracted in the present case as previous rejection was due to non-maintainability, when the case was fixed for judgment but when the case has again been reopened then the situation became changed and the application became maintainable and the previous rejection was never on merit.;

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