MADHUSUDHAN K JANI Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition which is directed against the order dated 28-09-1999 made by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No. 1319 of 1997 in O.S.No. 1234 of 1997 allowing an application filed under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of CPC thereby granting leave to defendants 4 and 5 to defend the suit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The revision petitioners filed O.S. No. 1234 of 1997 against defendants 1 to 5 seeking a decree for recovery of Rs.51,84,850/-. The defendants 1 to 3 failed to appear before the Court, but defendants 4 and 5, Branch Manager and Chairman and Managing Director of Andhra Bank, which is a Nationalised Bank filed LA. No.1319 of 1997 seeking leave of the Court to defend the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it has been stated on behalf of defendants 4 and 5 that the suit has been filed as a counter blast to the criminal cases filed against the 1st plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, which are under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The 1st defendant, who was the Manager of the defendant No.4 Branch at the relevant point of time, in collusion with Plaintiff No.1 and defendants 2 and 3 misappropriated funds of the Bank to the tune of crores of rupees. The matter was handed over to the CBI and consequent thereto the CBI filed FIR in RC No.8-A and 9-A against the plaintiffs as well as defendants 1 to 3 and charge-sheets are yet to be filed. The suit transaction is the subject matter of investigation pending with the CBI. It is also stated that no cause of action is disclosed in the suit against the Bank and there are absolutely no bona fides on the part of the plaintiffs in filing the suit, which is an attempt to pre-empt the criminal proceedings initiated against them. It is also stated that the records available in the Bank do not support the correctness of the allegations in the plaint. Accordingly the defendants 4 and 5 claimed that there are triable issues in respect of the suit claim and as such requested to grant leave to defend he suit.

(3.) The plaintiffs contested the said application by filing counter contending inter alia that the petitioners failed to make out any reason or justifiable cause as to why the suit should not be decreed.