- (1.) TWO Civil Revisions arising between the same parties and out of the same suit are being disposed of by this order Civil Revision No. 917 of 1990 has been filed by M/s Himachal Carpets and Rugs (India) and another --defendants against the order dated December 21, 1989, whereby application filed by the aforesaid defendants directing the plaintiff to produce notification/notifications authorising Shri S. P. Dhawan, Branch Manager to file the suit. Civil Revision No. 955 of 1990 has been filed by the same defendants Against order dated March 1, 1990, whereby request of the defendants to summon a witness from the plaintiff Bank (State Bank of India) as defendants witness to produce the aforesaid notification was declined.
(2.) STATE Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,62,700/-against the defendants. The suit was filed through S. P. Dhawn, Branch Manager of the Bank. Competency of Shri S. P. Dhawan to file the suit was challenged apart from other pleas taken by the defendants. At the evidence stage the aforesaid two orders were passed.
(3.) NO doubt in the order dated December 21, 1989, it is stated that notifications published in the Government Gazette could otherwise be produced on the record and taken into consideration, there was no reason as to why such notifications could not be allowed to be produced when asked for by the defendants at that stage. It cannot be disputed that such a notification would be a relevant and necessary piece of evidence to determine the competency of a person filing the suit on behalf of the Bank. The case of the defendants being that there was no such authorisation or notification in that respect in favour of Shri S. P. Dhawan, that fact could only be established either calling upon the plaintiff to produce the aforesaid notification/authorisation or summoning a witness, an employee of the plaintiff-Bank to produce the aforesaid notification/authorisation. Even if for certain reasons in the first order it was stated that such notification can otherwise be produced and rejected the prayer of the defendants, the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction at the stage of defendants' evidence not to summon an employee of the Bank as defendants' witness to produce the aforesaid notification, if any, or to give evidence, if there was none. These both orders, impugned, have been passed in illegal exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial Court.;