BHAVNAGAR BRICKS MANUFACTURING CO Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the best teas and index to the overall sense of the judicial-awareness discipline efficiency and will to do justice and the too as expeditiously as possible lies in the sense of vigilance exhibited by the Court in exercising its discretion in the matter of handing and granting adjournment to parties. Frivolous adjournments are very anti-thesis of justice. Such adjournments not only waste precious public time defeat the cause of justice but at times they further tend to be harsh punishments to innocent and guileless litigants and witnesses who in high hopes knock the doors of justice and ultimately in return in utter dismay find themselves stranded and anextricably stuck up.

(2.) Briefly the respondent-plaintiff No. 1 viz. the Bank of Baroda is a Nationalised Bank at Bhavnagar while the appellant-defendant No. 1 viz. Bhavnagar Bricks Manufacturing Co. is a partnership firm of which the appellants-defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and respondents-defendants Nos. 2 and 3 (Org. Defts. Nos. 2 3 4 and 5 respectively) are partners. That in the year 1984 the plaintiff-Bank had advanced certain cash credit facilities (on hypothecated goods) to the tune of about Rs. 1 30 0 in favour of the defendants doing the business of manufacturing and selling bricks at Bhavnagar. Since the defendants despite legal notice demanding the repayment of money so advanced persisted in continuing default with regard to the said repayment on 13/04/1987 the plaintiff-Bank was constrained to institute a suit the same being Special Civil Suit No. 104 of 1987 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Bhavnagar against all of them for recovery of the said outstanding dues with an accrued interest thereon to the tune of Rs. 1 80 510 coupled with an application (Ex. 5) under Order 38 Rule 5 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 inter alia praying for the attachment of the hypothecated goods (of the ownership of defendants) before judgment apprehending that if the defendants will come to know about the suit having been filed against them they were likely to transfer and dispose of the same resulting into a serious injustice to it inasmuch as if it succeeded in suit it would not be in to position to realise the decrease amount. This Ex. 5 application was duly supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri Ashokkumar Ramniklal Modi serving as an Accountant in the plaintiff-Bank itself at Bhavnagar. The trial Court thereupon by an order dated 15/04/1987 issued a notice (made returnable on 30/04/1987 to all the defendants calling upon them to show cause why they should not be ordered to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1 85 0 It appears that despite the fact that the said notice was made returnable on 30/04/1987 the same could not be heard and decided till 7/09/1989 when the trial Court was ultimately pleased to allow the same by passing the following order:

(3.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order the applicant-defendants have filed this Appeal from Order