STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. JITENDERA ENGG WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been directed against the order dated 3-2-1998, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/Bank under Order 18, Rule 17A, read with Section 151, C.P.C. for additional evidence. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

(2.) Mr. Mital, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the present case in the plaint originally the name of Mr. J. M. Uppal, Chief Manager of the petitioner-plaintiff Bank was typed but on the date when the suit was to be filed in the Court, Shri J. M. Uppal was on leave and in his absence, the plaint was signed by Shri S. R. Bhola, another officer of the Bank who was available on that day. He further submits that in the original copy of the plaint, the name of Shri J. M. Uppal was substituted by Shri S. R. Bhola, but in the office copy inadvertently correction was not made. He submits that all these facts were duly mentioned in the application filed by the plaintiff-Bank under Order 18, Rule 17A, C.P.C. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the plaintiff-Bank despite due diligence did not examine the evidence at the relevant time. He also submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 3, the suit filed by the Bank for recovery of loan should not be dismissed on the ground of the plaint not being signed and verified by the competent person.

(3.) Mr. Khetarpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submits that the requirement of Order 18, Rule 17A, C.P.C. has not been fulfilled in the present case as PW 1 B. K. Gupta, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff Bank has clearly stated in his statement that the plaint was signed and verified by Shri J. M. Uppal though according to the facts mentioned in the application, the plaint in fact was signed by Shri S. R. Bhola. He submits that the negligence of the counsel is not a good ground for allowing the application under Order 18, Rule 17, C.P.C. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Lakhbir Singh v. Kesar Kaur, 1984 Current Law Journal 599. The learned counsel of the respondent further submits that in fact the arguments of both the parties have already been heard by the learned trial Court and as such the application filed by the plaintiff-Bank under Order 18, Rule 17A, C.P.C. was not maintainable. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in Madan Mohan Aggarwal v. Mansa Devi, 1985 (2) PLR 206 and M/s. Ram Gopal Banarsi Dass v. Satish Kumar, 1990 (2) PLR 277.