SYNDICATE BANK BANGALORE Vs. SHIVARAM M VAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned advocates on both sides. The petitioners' learned Advocate points out that the learned Advocate who was handling the matter in the lower court is a handicapped person in addition to which that he had a variety of health problems and was required to shift from place to place because of this and that in this background, he had overlooked the fact that the matter appeared on board and had got dismissed. It was only when the bank wrote to him at an earlier stage that he came to know of what had happened. It is in these circumstances that the learned Advocate points out that even though the delay is abnormally long, that it is within the powers of this court to make an exception having regard to the fact that this is certainly a deserving case.

(2.) THE respondents' learned Advocate submits that undoubtedly courts can make exceptions where the situation warrants but he states that as a result thereof, assuming some order comes to be passed against his clients that there would be an abnormally heavy interest burden that he would be saddled with. The respondents' learned Advocate points out something of significance of which I must take judicial notice. He states that he has nothing to say with regard to the difficulties faced by his brother Advocate in the trial court which is not unusual in professional life but what he points out is that there has been a serious lapse on the part of the bank itself. His submission is that assuming that the suit was dismissed for default which unfortunately happens some times when a lawyer is unable to attend to a case or due to some other procedural problem he is unaware of the matter being listed etc. , but his submission is that the bank is a well-staffed institution which has a lot of litigation and in these circumstances that it was absolutely incumbent on the part of the bank to have set up a machinery for purposes of regularly co-ordinating with the learned advocates who handled the litigation, following the matters and attending the court on each date of hearing. He submits that nothing would excuse the institution from not having arranged for this and in so far as the lapse if any is on the part of the bank itself, that this court should not restore the matter as the consequences of non-restoration would be visited on the bank and not on the learned advocate. As far as this last aspect of the matter is concerned, unfortunately the position is exactly the reverse in so far as if the proceeding is not restored, there is every possibility that the institution would seek to hold the learned Advocate responsible and in the facts and circumstances of this case, that is something which should not happen.

(3.) I have however upheld the submission which the respondents' learned Advocate has canvassed and to my mind, it is high time that this court specifically issues a direction which banks and other institutions who are regular litigants in respect of recovery proceedings shall take cognisance of very seriously. Recently, this court had occasion to deal with cases in which the banks do not follow up the litigation and there is abnormal delay between the date when suits are filed and they are ultimately disposed of and this court had laid down certain guidelines whereby if the trial courts are satisfied that there has been a delay due to the fault of the plaintiff in either complying with the formalities or in the conduct of the suit, that no interest shall be awarded for this entire period. This court while dealing with another similar case wherein a decree was brought for execution almost 12 years after the date when it was passed had no option except to lay down that a reasonable period of 30 days shall be fixed by the court for the drawing up and obtaining of the decree and unless there is valid ground shown, that in any dilated execution proceedings that the court shall while executing the decree disqualify the plaintiff from claiming interest for the delayed period. Such disincentives have to be incorporated in the procedure as otherwise, these financial institutions will continue to choke up the courts with their litigation which never seems to end. The present case has focussed on a third facet of the matter and the respondents' learned Advocate is perfectly right when he points out that in this country where advocates are all practicing under many pressures, that the banks which are well-staffed cannot be beard to say that they entrusted the matter to their lawyer and thereafter forgot about it. It has recently been pointed out on behalf of the advocates that the requisite documents are often not made available despite being asked for, that the officers and employees neither attend to the service formalities nor do they attend the court and are invariably absent when the matters are taken up for hearing. There have been serious instances which this court has come across wherein the learned advocates have to withdraw from the proceeding in order to avoid the embarrasment in the court room when the officer did not turn up repeatedly to give evidence. In the present case also, the respondents' learned Advocate is right when he points out that even if the matter went by default in one particular date of hearing, had the bank taken the trouble to follow up the matter properly, it should have been in touch with the learned Advocate and would have immediately focussed its attention on the progress of the case and every one would have come to know as to what precisely had happened. The long period of slumber in this instance on the part of the bank is what is really responsible for the delay and this is an aspect which unfortunately was not brought to the notice of the trial court. This does not mean to say that the basic responsibility of the learned Advocate to whom the matter is entrusted with is either lessened or that he is exonerated from it but taking a practical view of the situation what needs to be emphasised is that the banks must at all levels in relation to their litigation, designate a person who will physically follow up every litigation periodically from time to time and will also attend each of the forums whether it is for ensuring the service, getting the copies executing the decrees or more importantly attending the courts on the different dates of hearing. This is a feeder service which is very necessary in order to ensure that the litigation is efficiently and expeditiously handled and disposed of without undue delay. This is an area where the financial institutions have defaulted and it is directed that they should take serious note of the views expressed by this court and also take appropriate corrective action. If this is not done, the courts will have no option except to come down heavily on the banks in question.