ALLAHABAD BANK Vs. HIRANYA BORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This interlocutory application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the applicant under Order 43 Rule 3 A read with Rule 2 of Chapter 5A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, praying for condoning the delay in preferring the civil revision against the order dated 29-04-2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge in Title Execution Case No. 8/2002.

(2.) The petitioner, a nationalized bank, filed a suit (T.S.21/1993) for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,24,298/-, which was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 14-08-1996 and the execution proceeding was initiated. The respondent No. 6 herein, filed an application before the learned executing court raising objection that the property which was sought to be sold for realizing the loan, was the property of the respondent No. 6 and therefore, her property could not be sold for recovery of the loan amount. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties, held, that the objection raised by the respondent No. 6 had merit. Accordingly, the petition was allowed by order dated 29-04-2014. The said order dated 29-04-2014 has been challenged by filing the revision petition on 31-01-2017. There was a delay of 917 days in preferring the revision petition, and as such, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for condonation of delay. Although the application has been filed under a wrong provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no difficulty in disposing the application on merit having regard to the relevant provision of law for condonation of delay, in filing a revision.

(3.) The delay of 917 days is sought to be explained by stating that the impugned order was passed on 29-04-2014 by the Civil Judge, Jorhat, but the concerned advocate of the petitioner informed the senior manager of the bank at Dehehorgorah about the order belatedly. Having come to know about the order, the branch manager sent the necessary documents to the penal lawyer of the bank at Guwahati on 10-07-2014. The learned lawyer at Guwahati did not handle the matter and therefore, it remained unattended. In the meantime, another officer joined the bank, who was also unaware of the subject, and accordingly, the matter remained unattended till September, 2016. On 05-09-2016 upon receiving a letter from the respondent No. 6, the then manager consulted the lawyer at the zonal office. He also collected the necessary papers and documents and furnish the same to the lawyer on 21-09-2016. The said lawyer asked for some more documents, which were furnished to him on 05-12- 2016 and eventually the revision petition was filed on 31-01-2017. The respondent filed a written objection stating that the petitioner has not been able to show any sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 917 days, as the averments made in the application were vague. Faced with the objection filed by the respondents, the applicant filed an additional affidavit, wherein the applicant stated the name of the concerned advocate at Guwahati to whom the documents of the case were sent for filing the revision petition on 10-04-2014. It is also stated in the said additional affidavit that the manager of the bank, Kishaloy Bhattacharjee, who was In-charge of the concerned branch from 10-04-2014 to 29-08-2015 already died and therefore, the bank could not get any information as to why the matter remained unattended. It is also stated that one Omprakash Srivastava was the manager of the concerned branch during the period from 31-8-2015 to 2-7-16 and from 5-7-16 one Abay Kumar was the In-charge of the bank. It is also stated that the present manager came to know about the matter only after receiving the notice from the respondent No. 6.