Patherya J. - (1.) G.A 2485 of 2009 and G.A 2486 of 2009 have been filed for return of the plaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and the plaint not disclosing any cause of action. Such applications have been filed in 2009 i.e. much after the filing of the application filed under Chapter XIIIA. In fact the applications have been filed after the hearing had commenced and the same is an afterthought and belated. The only reason given for the delayed filing is miscommunication between the defendant and its erstwhile advocate, who has been changed only for the purposes of filing the said applications. Except for the said bald explanation, backed by no particulars, no other explanation is forthcoming for the said delay.
(2.) AS held in various decisions that the bank?s affairs are looked after by its officers for whose delay the bank should not be penalised will not come to the defendant's aid as the bank has a legal department which is headed by a law officer who is equipped to advice the Bank. In any event this is not a ground taken for filing the application at this stage. In fact the amendment application was allowed and the appeal filed dismissed. No Special Leave Petition was filed therefrom. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Court was accepted so also existence of a cause of action. The defence taken in these applications if taken at the initial stage may have aided the defendant, but not at this stage, when in fact the said defence has not been taken in the affidavit filed to the Chapter XIIIA application and in the Written Statement both of which were filed in January, 2006. In fact the defence taken in the Written Statement and the affidavit to the Chapter XIIIA application is the same. For all the said reasons G.A 2485 of 2009 and 2486 of 2009 merit no order and are dismissed.;