KARNANI INDUSTRIAL BANK LTD Vs. SATYA NIRANJAN SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice C.C. Ghose. The order of the learned Judge was made on the 8 January 1924, whereby he dismissed an application made by the Karnani Industrial Bank under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act that the suit in question should be stayed.

(2.) The circumstances of this case, as far as my experience goes, are certainly out of the ordinary.

(3.) It appears that the suit in question was brought by Satya Niranjan Shaw and another for arrears of rent, mesne profits, damages and other reliefs against the Bank which was holding certain premises under a lease granted by the Plaintiffs. The summons was served upon the. Defendant Bank and the Bank entered appearance on the 19 of November last year. It then appeared that the Bank had brought a suit against one of the Bank's sub-tenants; and the learned Judge, apparently thinking that it was desirable that these two suits should be disposed of at or about the same time, made an order that the suit against the Bank by the Plaintiffs and the suit by the Bank against the sub-tenants should be placed in the daily list before the learned Judge to be mentioned. On the 22 November, those two suits were placed in the learned Judge's daily list; and, then what happened may be taken from the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Mr. H.D. Bose on behalf of the Plaintiffs mentioned this suit to the Court when Mr. Justice Ghose asked the learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant Bank when his clients would file their written statement, whereupon the said learned Counsel asked for a certain time, but the learned Judge directed that the Defendant Bank should file their written statement on Monday following, i.e., on the 26 November, and the learned Counsel for the Defendant thereupon pressing for a little longer time, the Court ordered the defendant Bank to file their written statement by Wednesday following, i.e., on the 28 November and also made a cross order for discovery by Friday following, i.e., to say on the 30 November and also an order for inspection. The learned Judge summarised the proceedings as follows : - " This case was set down on the list on a particular date last month to be mentioned. Counsel on behalf of the present applicant appeared and informed me that no written statement had been filed. Upon that there was a discussion as to how much time was wanted for the purposes of filing the written statement. Learned Counsel asked for a longer time than I was prepared to give and ultimately I allowed a certain period to the applicant to file his written statement and there was cross order for discovery."