JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) The Bank of Maharashtra, Chandigarh Branch, which is a nationalised Bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 19,38,376.78 against M/s Rajesh Industrial Corporation, Show Room No. 15, Jagat Theatre Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh, its proprietor Shri Pawan Kumar Jain and two others in the Courts of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh. The allegations in the plaint were that the petitioners were carrying on business and dealing in importing acrylic and plastic sheets. They approached the plaintiffs for cash credit limit on various occasions during the years 1977 and 1978; that in consideration of the plaintiffs granting the petitioners the cash credit facility against pledge/hypothecation of imported goods and against joint and several pronotes the petitioners signed the agreements, demand promissary notes etc. on various occasions. The petitioners had been withdrawing the money from the accounts from time to time. However, they failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the Bank and did not operate the accounts according to the Banking norms. The plaintiff-Bank asked the petitioners to repay the dues within one month. However, the petitioners did not comply and ultimately the plaintiff-Bank filed a suit.
(2.) The petitioners appeared in the Court and filed an application under Rule 14 Order 11, Rule 1 and 8 Order 12 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer that the plaintiffs be directed to file the documents to which they made reference in the application under consideration and they be allowed to file written statement after the filing of all these documents and inspection of the same. 60 Items have been mentioned in the application. Some of these items contain and comprehend a large number of books and documents of the Bank. The plaintiff vehemently opposed this application. It was contended that the application was filed solely with the intention of delaying the proceedings. It was admitted that the documents were in the possession of the plaintiff but the documents form not the basis of the suit. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application holding that the defendants can file the written statement and they can affirm or deny as to whether they received loan from the plaintiff bank or not and as to whether the statement of account on the basis of which the plaintiffs have filed the suit and a copy of which has been served on the petitioners, is correct or not. It was not the proper stage for the Court to order the plaintiffs to produce documents mentioned in the application. However, the defendants after filing written statement can request that the Court should order production of certain documents which are in possession of the plaintiffs. If they wanted to conduct the inspection of the documents they should have proceeded under Rule 15, Order 11 C.P.C. and given notice to the plaintiffs as envisaged by this rule. The petitioners had not given such a notice. It was also observed that the application under Rules 1 and 8 of Order 12, C.P.C. was not maintainable because the petitioners had not given a notice as required by the rule ibid. They were required under Rule 8 of Order 12 to give notice in form 12 in Appendix 'C' attached to the C.P.C. They had to file an affidavit that service of that notice had been effected on the plaintiffs but this had not been done. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this Revision Petition.
(3.) Mr. H.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have grave misgivings that some of the documents on which reliance has been placed by the plaintiff-Bank were not genuine. The documents had been tampered with. It was essential for the petitioners to examine these documents and make a written statement on the basis of such an examination. The trial Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and has thereby caused a grave injustice to the petitioners. The production of these documents would not have in any way caused any harm or injury to the plaintiffs. However, refusal by the Court has handicapped the petitioners in their defence.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.