CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. NARESH ELECTRIC CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 14.10.1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 95/1988. By the aforesaid judgment and order the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs.29,909.95 was dismissed on the ground that the suit was not filed by a duly authorised and competent person. 621

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 29,909.25 which constituted a term loan of Rs.25,000.00 taken by defendants 1 & 2 from the plaintiff bank. The defendants No. 3 & 4 stood guarantors for repayment of the loan by executing a letter of guarantee. The defendants however, failed in their commitment and failed to pay the amount of instalments and accordingly the defendants are said to be indebted to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.29,909.25 which included interest upto 25.5.1988.

(3.) The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 filed their written statement whereas the defendant No. 4 did not contest the suit and as against him the suit was proceeded exparte. Subsequently, the other defendants namely - defendants 1,2 &3 also did not appear and contest the suit. Accordingly as against them also the suit proceeded ex parte on account of their non-appearance. During the trial of the suit the plaintiff examined PW1, Om Prakash Gupta, the Sub Accountant of the Janpath branch of the plaintiff bank at the relevant time and also the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank's branch at Karkardoma when the loan was sanctioned. The said witness deposed before the Court that Hari Ram Sharma was the Assistant Regional Manager and he was duly authorised to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank by means of a notarised Power of Attorney and duly executed by the Directors of the bank. The learned Additional District Judge, Delhi however, by his judgment and order aforesaid dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the suit has been filed and that the plaint has been signed and verified by a duly authorised and competent person. The present appeal was admitted on 12.8.1993 and the notices were issued to the respondents. However, the said notices could not be served on the respondents by ordinary process and accordingly by order dated 23.1.1995 it was ordered that the service on the respondents be effected by affixation which was subsequently done.