PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. FIRM RAMKISHAN RAMGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, Punjab National Bank, the appellant herein, calls in question the validity of the order dated 25-4-1989 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in F. A. No. 178/82.

(2.) THE appellant as plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 10-B/76 in the Court of District Judge, Hoshangabad for recovery of a certain sum from the defendants therein. As the said suit was decided against the plaintiff the aforesaid first Appeal was preferred in this Court. It is pertinent to state here that the suit was filed against two firms, namely, M/s Ramkishan Ramgopal and M/s Shah Ashok Kumar and Co. No partners were arrayed as defendants. During the pendency of the First Appeal, three partners of the respondent No. 1 Firm, namely, Firm Ramkishan - Ramgopal expired. This fact was intimated by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 as required under Order 22, Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is the admitted position that the respondent No. 1 Firm is a registered partnership firm. This intimation was given on 17-2-1987. Thereafter the appellant filed applications for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement, and substitution of legal representatives of the said partners. This Court by the impugned order observed that reason indicated in the petition for condonation of delay was vague and accordingly rejected all the three applications and directed for final hearing of the appeal. The said order is the cause of grievance of the appellant in this appeal.

(3.) MR. J. P. Sanghi learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed illegality by not taking into consideration that the appellant was a nationalised bank and it has its difficulties in making inquiries and finding out the legal representatives of the deceased partners. . His further submission is that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in not entertaining the application is an epitome of technical torture, and as the order substantially affects the interest of the appellant this Court should set aside the impugned order and permit the appellant to bring the legal heirs on record so that the controversy between the parties can be appropriately adjudicated. Mr. Anil Khare learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against the impugned order as by that order the appeal has not been finally disposed of, and therefore, it would not attract the jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.