Delhi High Court
United Bank Of India vs J.D.Gupta & Others on 14 March, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.229/1996
% 14th March, 2011
UNITED BANK OF INDIA ...... Appellant
Through: Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv.
VERSUS
J.D.GUPTA & OTHERS ...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this regular first appeal under Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is to the impugned order dated 31.5.1995
whereby the application of the appellant/bank to set aside the exparte
proceedings was dismissed and also to the judgment and decree dated
30.9.1995 decreeing the suit jointly and severely against the
defendants/respondents, the appellant bank being one such defendant
(defendant no.5) in the suit.
2. The subject suit for recovery of Rs.55,547.50 was filed by the
plaintiff/respondent no.1 on the ground that a bank draft was got prepared
RFA No.229/1996 Page 1 of 3
by him from the Canara Bank, Bhogal in favour of defendant no.7/respondent
no.7 Sh. Manohan Bhardwaj. It was alleged in the suit that the bank draft for
Rs.34,000/- was however, illegally received by defendant no.1/respondent
no.2/Sh. Pappu Srivastava and by opening a fraudulent account with the
appellant/defendant no.5 in Guwahati the draft was encashed. The
respondent no.1/plaintiff therefore filed the suit for recovery against various
defendants, including the appellant/defendant no.5 for recovery of the
amount. The trial court has decreed the suit jointly and severely against the
defendants, including the appellant/defendant no.5.
3. In my opinion, there is no illegality in the order dated 31.5.1995
refusing to set aside the ex-parte proceedings against the appellant
inasmuch as the trial court has noted that there was no appearance on
behalf of the appellant/defendant no.5 on as many as six dates of hearings
being 16.9.1991, 10.12.1991, 26.2.1992, 15.5.1992, 29.5.1992 and
4.9.1992. The appellant bank cannot take up a stand that the ex parte
proceedings were not validly taken. Ordinarily, every bank regularly
corresponds with his advocate and if the appellant bank has been found
wanting in this regard, the same cannot be the ground to set aside the ex
parte proceedings.
4. I find this appeal to be really unnecessary inasmuch as the decree in
this case is of the year 1995 i.e. more than 16 years have elapsed and the
appellant did not have stay of the money decree against it. The counsel for
the appellant does not know whether the money decree has been executed
RFA No.229/1996 Page 2 of 3
qua the appellant or against any of the defendants who have been made
jointly and severely liable. The only ground urged before this court for
setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.9.1995 is that the
courts at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction qua the appellant /defendant
no.5 which had its branch at Gauhati. This argument is without substance
because for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 part of the cause of action arose at
Delhi and the part of the cause of action is of making of the bank draft by
plaintiff/respondent no.1 at Delhi. Therefore this court had territorial
jurisdiction because part of the cause of action arose at Delhi.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the
impugned order dated 31.5.1995 and the impugned judgment and decree
dated 30.9.1995 which calls for interference by this court in appeal. Merely
because two views are possible, this court will not interfere with a plausible
view which is taken by the trial court. The appeal is therefore dismissed
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MARCH 14, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
