S V MAHADEVAN Vs. MESSRS INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal has been filed against the order of the Sub Court, Pondieherry dated 19-4-1982 in O.P. No. 12 of 1981 dismissing the petition filed seeking leave to sue as an indigent person under O. 33, R. 1 C.P.C.

(2.) THE appellant sought leave as above to file a suit against the respondent-Bank for recovery of Rs. 61,53,296.34 towards the alleged loss of profit and damages. THE case of the appellant was that for establishing his industry, he approached the respondent-Bank and got sanctioned a loan through the Director Small Industries Services Institute, Guindy, that subsequently he approached for increasing the loan to cover Tuning cost, that the Bank failed to act deliberately to draw the funds at the appropriate time for being utilised resulting in charging of higher rate of interest and that the Bank did not allow the prescribed holiday period for repayment, and for other reasons set out in the petition the appellant suffered a financial crisis resulting in serious problems and stalemate in the running of the industry. It was further contended that the Bank locked the stores room and denied him facility to operate accounts and effectively to run the industry and that, therefore, the Bank was responsible for all the loss an J damage suffered including the damage under the heading of whit the appellant will call as criminal damage for the alleged loss of prestige, credibility and mental agony. It has been further staled by the appellant that he was not possessed of any property worth even Rs 150, that he was unable to pay court fee and, therefore, he has filed the above petition under O. 33, R. 1, C.P.C.

(3.) WITH reference to the averments based on O. 33, R. 5(b) and (1), no doubt the court below has not dealt with this aspect in detail In view of this, the respective counsel referred me to the petition as well as the evidence on record On going through the same and after considering the submissions of the learned counsel, this court finds that the plaint allegations in respect of the claim are not only vague but do not specify as to how for some of the alleged lapses either the respondent could be found f ault with or the alleged damages said to be the direct cause and result of the so called lapses. This Court finds total absence of any details with reference to the claim made under the so called heading ?criminal damages?. Having regard to all these, this court is of the view that inspite of the fact that the petition is a lengthy one, it does not sufficiently disclose the legal existence of the cause of action. Further in paragraph 32 with reference to cause of action, it has been stated as follows :?