NEW BANK OF INDIA Vs. PUSHPA AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of all these above-mentioned revision petitions, being common, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In all these above revisions the petitioner-Bank challenged the order of rejection of application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the suits since the plaints in these cases had been rejected u/Order 7 Rule II, Civil Procedure Code for non-filing of deficient Court fee.

(3.) According to the petitioner-Bank more than 2000 cases of New Bank of India were to be filed immediately on the opening of the Court after summer vacation in 1986, relating to grant of loans to masses. Huge amount of Court fee was involved. In order to manage the situation, the Counsel of the Bank were requested to file the cases with nominal Court fee and to request the Court for extension of time for payment of Court fees. Counsel in these cases received about 170 such cases which were to be filed by her on 30th June, 1986 and 1st July, 1986. These 170 cases were listed in seven Courts. Names of the defendants were common in many matters. Consequently, it became difficult to find out the Court to which all those 170 cases had been earmarked on account of confusion. Out of the said 170 cases these seven cases were listed before the learned Sub Judge on 3rd July, 1986. The Counsel for the petitioner could not appear on account of the said confusion. However, the Court granted time to make up the deficiency within two days and her presence was also marked in a routine manner. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 9th July, 1986. As the Counsel for the petitioner was labouring under confusion due to common name of the defendants she neither knew the order nor the date fixed in these 7 matters. On 10th July, 1986 the Court dismissed the suit for non appearance as well as for not making good the deficiency in the Court fee. On coming to know about the dismissal, the plaintiff/petitioner filed applications for restoration of the plaints stating therein that the Counsel for the petitioner could not locate these cases earlier and they could be located only about two to three days before moving the applications for restoration in all the matters. The said applications were dismissed by similar orders in all these matters.