PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. BALBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is a classical illustration where the provisions of law and procedure have been misused to delay the free flow of justice. The most unfortunate part is that the delaying tacties have been adopted by the Punjab National Bank which is a nationalised bank and instrumentality of the State.

(2.) A suit for declaration was filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Balbir Kaur to the effect that she is the depositor-claimant of the fixed deposit receipts with the bank and the aforesaid fixed deposit receipt are lying with defendant No. 2 Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Civil Lines, Jalandhar. The plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to the total value of the aforesaid fixed deposit receipts including the interest thereupon. Additionally, permanent injunction was claimed for restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3 to release the aforesaid FDRs and interest thereupon to defendant No. 4 Manohar Singh or his representatives, nominees etc.

(3.) UPON notice of the suit, the defendants appeared. Although the Punjab National Bank (defendants No. 1 to 3) was represented by one counsel but instead of filing a written statement it chose to file an application under (Order) 1 rule 10(2) CPC. The prayer made in the application is to strike out the names of defendants No. 1 and 2 being unnecessary parties. In the aforesaid application, the defendants claimed that the plaintiff had not shown any cause of action arising against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, the aforesaid defendants No. 1 and 2 were wholly unnecessary parties. It was prayed that their names be deleted from the array of the defendants. The aforesaid application of the defendants was contested by the plaintiff. She took up preliminary objection that the said application was not maintainable. It was further maintained by the plaintiff that the bank was a body corporate and, therefore, for the purposes of suing the said Bank, the Principal and Head Office of the Bank had been arrayed as defendants No. 1, whereas on averments made in the plaint, defendants No. 2 and 3 were necessary parties.