BANK OF INDIA Vs. A.V.PANIKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred against an order passed by the learned Sub Judge -VI, Ranchi, in Title Suit No. 36 of 1999 dated 31st July, 2008 (Annexure 4 to the memo of petition) whereby, an application, preferred by defendant no.1 (Bank of India, Head Officer, Express Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai) and the present petitioner (Bank of India, Clubside Branch, Ranchi -original defendant no.2) dated 14th May, 2008 for reopening the stage of taking evidence of defendant nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed by the trial court and, therefore, against this order of dismissal and as the stage of taking evidence has been closed vide order dated 10th March, 2008, the present petition has been preferred, so that the stage of taking evidence may be opened and a very vital document, namely, hypothecation deed dated 6.2.1995 along with other relevant documents can be presented by the petitioner (Bank of India, Clubside Branch, Ranchi) before the trial court, so that the trial court can come to a correct conclusion about the dispute between the parties.

(2.) IT is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner (original defendant no.2) that the said document will facilitate the trial court in dispensing the justice to the parties to the suit. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a written statement was already filed by the present petitioner and as per paragraph no.13 of the written statement, the original plaintiff i.e. present respondent no.1 had taken cash credit facility, worth Rs.2,00,000/ -, which was later on enhanced up to Rs.3,00,000/ -, upon hypothecation of Gas Cylinders and the present petitioner (original defendant no.2) wants to present this document of hypothecation before the trial court. Likewise, other relevant documents are also to be presented before the trial court, so that the trial court may come to a correct conclusion about the dispute between the parties.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, who has vehemently submitted that the petitioner (defendant no.2) is thoroughly negligent in presenting the documents before the trial court, though they were in its custody. Number of adjournments were given by the trial court, but, lethargic approach has been continued on every date of adjournment and when the stage of taking evidence is closed down by the trial court vide order dated 10th March, 2008, an application has been preferred and, therefore, rightly the same has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 31st July, 2008. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) that because of the letter, written by the present petitioner (defendant no.2) dated 26th February, 1996, the Gas Agency of respondent no.1 was cancelled by original defendant no.3 and a heavy damage has been sustained by the original plaintiff and, therefore, the suit has been instituted for damages. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has also drawn the attention of this Court upon a letter, written by the petitioner -Bank of India dated 29th March, 1996, which is annexed as Annexure C to the counter affidavit in this writ petition and the same is also exhibited as Ext. No. 6/D in Title Suit No. 36 of 1999. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no.1 that the claim for damages canvassed by the original plaintiff is fortified by the document at Ext. 6/D. In fact, by the aforesaid document (Ext. 6/D) the petitioner (defendant no.2 -Bank of India) admits the whole claim of the original plaintiff. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no.1 that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the order, passed by the trial court dated 31st July, 2008 may not be interfered with by this Court