STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. PENIAMMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Bank of India has filed the present petition on September 09, 2014 as borne by the stamp of this Court. The date recorded in the index to the petition is April 28, 2014. The Bank impugns the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal on February 18, 2013 dismissing the suit qua the principal borrower of a personal loan who is arrayed as defendant No.1. The money suit was filed on January 21, 2011. The suit was registered and notice was issued to the defendants for April 27, 2011 on filing of copy of plaint and process fee etc. Defendant No.2 is the Executive Engineer, HUDA Division, PWD B&R Br. Karnal the employer of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 took a personal loan of Rs.1.2 lacs on August 29, 2005 to be paid in 42 EMIs of Rs.3360/- each. The employer being the drawing and disbursing officer of the defendant No.1 was authorized to deduct and deposit regular instalments as due every month. The loan was sanctioned and disbursed. It is stated that the loan amount became irregular by default in payment of the EMIs. The Bank instituted a recovery suit of Rs.1,43,268/- along with interest pendente lite and future interest as per instructions of the Reserve Bank of India. The suit was brought against the principal-borrower and the employer who was obliged to make deductions from salary of defendant No 1 towards repayment of the loan.

(2.) Having filed the suit on January 21, 2011 the Bank failed to take steps to supply a copy of the plaint and to deposit process fee and registered cover to effect service on the principal-borrower - defendant No.1. Eleven opportunities were taken uptil November 16, 2012 but there was failure to comply with the court process for summons to issue to defendant No.1. It may be noted that defendant No.2 entered appearance through counsel on April 27, 2011 which was the first date fixed for service of summons. The employer defendant filed his written statement on September 20, 2011.

(3.) Defendant No.1 remained unserved due to fault of the Bank in not complying with court process. The last and the 11th opportunity was granted on November 16, 2012 when the trial Court yet again recorded that notice to defendant No.1 could not be issued for want of supply of copy of plaint etc.