A PALANI Vs. BANK OF INDIA VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 19.07.2004, made in A.S.No.40 of 2000, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 20.1.2000, made in O.S.No.840 of 1996, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience the parties in the appeal are referred to as they have been arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.840 of 1996.

(3.) A written statement had been filed on behalf of the defendant bank stating that a suit in O.S.No.450 of 1978 had been filed against the plaintiff for the recovery of money due from him. The suit had been decreed, on 14.07.1981. A Commissioner had been appointed, on an application filed in the suit, to take inventory of the stock-in-trade found in the premises at No.28/A, Beri Subramaniasami Koil Street, Vellore-4. In spite of several notices issued to the plaintiff, he had not discharged his liability by paying the amount due to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant had to file the suit in O.S.No.450 of 1978 and to appoint a Commissioner to take inventory of the stock-in-trade at the business premises of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff was not available, either during the taking of the inventory or after its completion, the Commissioner appointed by the Court had to lock up the premises. It had been made clear by the defendant that the defendant was willing to give up its right over the hypothecated goods, provided the plaintiffs give immovable property as security or bank guarantee to cover the suit amount. It has also been stated that the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.194 of 1981, had set up one Manivannan, to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in O.S.No.450 of 1978 to get himself impleaded on the ground that he is the owner of M/s.Pazhani Textiles and that his goods are also in the business premises of the plaintiff. The said application had been dismissed after contest. 5.1. The plaintiff had filed an application in I.A.No.2019 of 1979, wherein he had categorically admitted that the goods in the premises at Door No.28/A, Beri Subramaniasami Koil Street, Vellore-4, are worth only Rs.15,000/-. Further, the plaintiff had closed his business on his own accord several months prior to the filing of the suit. Without raising the issues in the interim application filed by the defendant for appointment of the Commissioner, the present suit has been filed claiming damages. It is also seen that the plaintiff had not filed any objections to the Commissioner's report nor has he challenged the appointment of the Commissioner in the manner known to law. Therefore, the defendant is not liable for the alleged damages said to have been caused by the locking up of the business premises of the plaintiff.