CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RADHAKISHAN JAGDISHPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the chamber summons are being disposed of with common judgment as the same arise out of execution proceedings by way of warrant of attachment levied under the same application and under the same decree. Further, the applicant in the Chamber Summons No. 843 of 1991 is the son and applicant in Chamber Summons No. 844 of 1991 is his father who is defendant No. 6 in the suit against whom decree has already been passed.

(2.) TO appreciate the merits of both these applications, a brief appraisal of the facts would be necessary.

(3.) THE plaintiff herein is a bank and they have filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of a certain amount. As far as defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were concerned the claim related to the credit facilities granted to them and defendant No. 6 who has taken out a second application was the carrier of certain goods entrusted to him for delivery to the particular party to whom the sixth defendant was to deliver goods on payment. However, defendant No. 6 delivered the goods to the consignee without receiving payment which act of defendant No. 6 according to the plaintiffs was fraudulent. Therefore, in the suit a separate claim was made against defendant No. 6 on that ground and this court has decreed the said claim.