SYNDICATE BANK ZONAL OFFICE BANGALORE Vs. NAGAPPA MAVADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three execution petitions have been dismissed by the executing Court on the ground that they were bereft of the requisite particulars. There is no dispute about the facts that the learned Judge was perfectly justified in having dismissed the petitions because, he has pointed out that the ingredients of order 21, Rule 13 specifically requires that the various ingredients of law must be satisfied. Where a petition is haphazardly drafted and where it is presented to the Court in a manner that categorises it as a defective one, a Court will have no option except to dismiss that petition and the argument that is put forward is that the petitioner the litigant should not be punished for what has happened. That is precisely the argument that has been repeated in this case because, the contention is that the petitioners are a bank, that they have obtained decrees which are sought to be executed and that in the process, due to the error in the course of the execution proceedings, the execution petitions themselves have been dismissed and the decrees have been rendered unexecutable.

(2.) THE respondents have been served and are unrepresented. I have therefore, heard the petitioners' learned Advocate and his principal submission is that the learned Judge has overlooked the provisions of Order 21, Rule 17 which enjoin on the Court, a duty to ascertain as to whether the execution petition is in proper form and if not so, to return it to the party for purposes of time-bound rectification. The learned Advocate submits that the errors had taken place through oversight which is something that I am not prepared to accept because, the same state of affairs is reflected in all the three cases unless, such oversights are the order of the day with this particular bank. The fact remains however, that the bank would have to write off the amounts because, it is too late in the day for them to file fresh petitions and therefore, the permission to rectify the mistakes will have to be given in the overall interests of justice. I am conscious of the fact that we have a financial institution on one side and persons on the other who owe money to that institution and who have not paid it up regardless of the fact that a Court has passed decrees against them. While the default on the part of the bank or whoever is in-charge of their litigation is undoubtedly there, one needs to balance the equities in cases like this and take cognizance of the fact that persons who owe money to the bank should not be allowed to get away scot-free merely because of what is happening. The Courts have however, had a rather sorry experience with regard to the manner in which bank litigations are being handled in the lower Courts and it would be desirable if these banks were to once and for all decide as to whether or not it is possible for them to ensure that the litigations are properly conducted or else, it is better that they do not waste the time of the Courts any more.

(3.) ON the facts of the present case, the particulars that were wanting in the execution petition will have to be furnished. The petitioners are granted an outer limit of four weeks from today to carry out these rectifications. These cases shall be listed before the Executing Court for further orders on 3-10-1996 and if the Court finds that the petitioners have furnished the requisite particulars, the Executing Court shall proceed with the execution proceedings. The impugned orders are set aside and it is made clear to the petitioners that if there is default on their part, that the Executing Court shall be at liberty to forthwith dismiss the proceedings on 3-10-1996. Also, the Executing Court shall take note of the fact that these are cases which are over one decade old and under these circumstances, if there is any slackness or delay on the part of the petitioners in proceeding with the execution and having it disposed of, the Executing court will not be obliged to indiscriminately grant them time.