DASHRATH NARHARI NARVEKAR Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review application is directed against the judgment passed by me on February 24, 1989. The case of the petitioner is that he prayed, inter alia, in the suit that the defendant-bank be directed/ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 21,760, being the loss and damage caused to him up to the date of the filing of the suit and further loss/damages at the rate of Rs. 200 per day from the date of filing of the suit until the letter written by it to the Director of Transport/regional Transport authority, Panaji, is withdrawn and the plaintiff is able to ply his said bus No. GDS 1512 on a valid permit. By the judgment review of which is sought, this court allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, and, therefore, quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated October 30, 1986, passed by the trial court. However, while decreeing the suit, although it has been held that the petitioner had not succeeded in getting a permit to ply the concerned but due to a tortious act of the respondent, this court decreed the suit only in respect of the amount of Rs. 13,600, i. e. , the amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 200 per day up to the date of the suit. It is the further case of the petitioner that, after this court has held that the petitioner could not ply the vehicle due to the tortious act of the respondent, it ought to have granted the second part of the aforesaid prayer. In not granting the said prayer in toto, this court has committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record and justifies the review sought.

(2.) THOUGH the respondent was duly served, none has put in appearance on its behalf, although mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar is an advocate on record and though he was present in court yesterday and he was fully aware that the matter has been kept for hearing today. In the circumstances, therefore, the matter has been heard.

(3.) MR. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited my attention to the aforesaid prayer made in the suit as well as to what this court has observed in paragraph 9 of the judgment sought to be reviewed. He contends that this court has not granted the second part of the said prayer, namely, damages at the rate of Rs. 200 per day from the date of the filing of the suit till the withdrawal of the letter written by the respondent to the transport authorities, by clear oversight. There is, therefore, a good ground for reviewing the same judgment.