SUNANDA MITTAL Vs. KOTAK MOHINDRA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.03.2006 declining leave to the plaintiff to defend the suit filed under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Code') by the respondent-bank and consequently decreeing the suit.

(2.) The respondent-bank had filed a suit for recovery of loan amount of Rs 6 lakh along with interest accrued thereon. The petitioner is alleged to have agreed to repay the loan in 24 equated monthly instalments of Rs.30,744/- with interest in pursuance to the agreement No.432496 dated 26.08.2004 Since the petitioner is alleged to have failed to adhere to the financial discipline and failed to clear the amounts despite repeated reminders, the loan amount was recalled by a demand notice dated 07.07.2004 served on the defendants in the suit and thereafter the suit was filed. It may be noticed that the suit was initially filed both against the petitioner as defendant no.1 and the husband of the defendant no.1 as defendant no.2. However, since defendant no.2 passed away, respondent-bank took no steps to implead the legal representatives, in terms of the impugned order the suit was held to have abated against the said-defendant no.2 and thus the decree was passed only against the present petitioner as defendant no.1 after dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the said Code.

(3.) In the application filed by the petitioner, one of the pleas raised was about the authorization in favour of the person instituting the suit. The petitioner alleged that no statement of account reflecting the outstanding payments has been filed and simultaneously took the plea that what was filed as a statement of account by the respondent-bank was incorrect. The petitioner denied availing of any loan facility and admitted that she had put her signatures at the instance of her husband who had informed her that the loan transaction was merely a sham transaction which was entered into with some financial services in order to show minimum target transactions to keep their agency alive. The documents were alleged to have been signed by the petitioner in blank under the influence of her husband and the bank is stated not to have placed on record anything to show disbursement of the loan.