SATYA NARAYANAGIWAL Vs. STATEBANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Bank of India, the respondent No. 1 in the present appeal, filed Money Suit No. 12 of 1983 against the appellant and proforma respondents for recovery of its dues amounting to Rs.6,43,663/84P. The defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing their written statement and taking the plea that there was no cause of action for the suit, which was, therefore, not maintainable. As many as 11 issues were framed. While issues No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the contesting defendants No. 1 to 6,issues No.9 and 8 were partly allowed. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and so were the issues No.l, 2 and 11. In the result, the suit was decreed in part. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the suit, the State Bank of India, filed an appeal in this Court, being F.A.No. 766 of 1992 R. The said appeal ultimately succeeded and by judgment dated 20th August 2004, the findings of the Trial Court relating to interest payable were set aside and the suit was decreed.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in appeal the defendants No.3 and 6 in the suit, Sri Satya Narayan Agiwal and Sri Bishwanath Agiwal filed the instant appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. When the matter was placed for admission before the Division Bench on 17th March, 2005, certain question of law relating to the maintainability of the appeal were raised having regard to the provisions of clause 10 of the Letters Patent, read with Section 100-A and Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter was therefore referred to a Full Bench of 3 Judges to consider and decide the said issues, which had been raised. The matter was thereafter taken up for consideration by the Full Bench in terms of the said reference.

(3.) Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the appeal was maintainable as would be evident from the language of clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The said question had also fallen for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court and the said issue had been decided in favour of the appellant.