GYANENDRA SINGH NAGAR Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.26113/2016

(2.) The respondent thereafter filed a suit for recovery of the said amount.

(3.) By the impugned order the application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. It was held that in view of Order VII Rule 13 CPC, the present suit could be filed despite dismissal of the earlier suit based on the same cause of action. The Court also concluded that there is an explanation given regarding the discovery of the mistake and hence the respondent may be entitled to the benefit of Section 17 of the Limitation Act inasmuch as a specific averment has been made in para 6 of the plaint that on 26.10.2011 the respondent bank was informed by the concerned department from its Head Office about un-reconciled outstanding entries of its branch and upon verification this included wrong payment of Rs.3,50,000/- to the account of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court held that the question of limitation could not be decided at the preliminary stage without giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence.