ASHOK MALKANI Vs. BANK OF BARODA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision application is directed against an order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A. No. 14 and I.A. No. 15 before it. I.A. No. 14 is an application praying for affording an opportunity to the defendant-applicant to get his statement recorded as well as to get his witnesses examined. I.A. No. 15 is an application for directing the plaintiff to produce original document mentioned in the application itself.

(2.) Shri N.S. Purohit, learned Counsel for applicant submitted, relying on, the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, 1969 AIR(SC) 1267, that procedure is only a hand-faid of justice and because of procedural technicalities, the Court cannot refuse to do substantial justice between the parties. He further submitted that the advocate appearing for the applicant did not inform him that the list of witnesses has to be filed on due date and, therefore, the list of witnesses was not filed in time. He submitted that only because the list of witnesses was not filed, the Court cannot refuse to examine the witnesses. As regards the documents, it was submitted that the applicant was not aware of the circular and instructions issued by the various Departments and was, therefore, not able to file them earlier or to disclose the source from which he got the knowledge of the document. Shri Purohit submitted that in the interest of justice, the applicant should have been granted an opportunity to lead evidence and to get the documents produced. Shri Surjeet Singh, learned Counsel for the non-applicants, on the other hand submitted that the prayers made in I.A. Nos. 14 and 15 are the same and the same were disposed of by an order dated 28.10.1985. According to Shri Surjeet Singh both these applications were made on 19-11-85 and were mala fide filed to bye-pass the order dated 28-10-85 passed by the Court.

(3.) A perusal of the record shows that the defendants had moved application I.A. No. 13, praying for an amendment of written statement. In I.A. No. 13 amendment was prayed for relying upon some circulars and documents. That application was rejected by order dated 28-10-1985 and the case was posted on 19-11-1985. The relief sought in both these applications is substantially the same. A perusal of the order of the trial Court rejecting I.A. Nos. 14 and 15 shows that the Court has considered the prayer thoroughly and has held that the application was mala fide moved and in order to show the mala fide the court has noted the dates on which adjournments were sought as also the fact that time was taken on 28-10-1985 to challenge the order passed on that but on 19-11-1985 fresh applications were moved and the order dated 28-10-85 was still not challenged in the revision application. I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court. The record of the proceedings of the case speak for itself. The case has been unnecessarily delayed. There is no scope for intereference with the order. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.