Vijaya Bank vs Anob Kumar C.B
2021 Latest Caselaw 1123 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

    TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942

                        OP(C).No.3014 OF 2015(O)

    AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.4505/2015 IN OS 87/2014 DATED
        13.11.2015 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM


PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

             VIJAYA BANK
             BROADWAY BRANCH,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER.

             BY ADVS.
             SMT.SALLY THOMAS CHACKO
             SRI.P.T.THOMAS PERAKATH

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

      1      ANOB KUMAR C.B.
             AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.C.R.VELAYUDHAN,
             AMANCHERIL HOUSE, VENNALA PO, KOCHI 21.

      2      K.D.MANUEL
             AGED 49 YEARS
             KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, B.H.C.POST,
             DESHEEYA KAVALA, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI 21

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANILKUMAR KALLESSERIL
             R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
             R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)

    THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.01.2021, THE
    COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(C) NO.3014/2015                2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of January 2021

By Exhibit P6 order, the learned Principal Munsiff,

Ernakulam dismissed the application made by the plaintiff for

review. The order dated 13.11.2015 is under challenge in this

proceeding invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner is a Nationalised Bank which instituted

O.S.No.87 of 2014 before the court below for realisation of

money. After holding that the suit was barred by law of limitation,

the court below by Exhibit P2 decree not only dismissed the suit

but imposed costs also. Being aggrieved by the decree imposing

cost, the petitioner sought review which was turned down. This

order is sought to be set aside in this proceeding.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No

representation is made on behalf of the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the

court below ought to have rather taken into consideration the

fact that the petitioner is a Bank working in public sector while

ordering costs in favour of the defendants. I understand that

going by the principles of law, power to impose cost is rather

discretionary with the court. Strictly speaking, I do not find any

illegality in the order passed by the court below. Nevertheless

taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a Nationalised

Bank and the decree imposing costs would rather have the

indirect effect of affecting the interests of the public, I am of the

opinion that it ought to be reviewed. The impugned decree to the

limited extent of imposing cost is liable to be set aside and the

review petition allowed.

In the result, O.P. succeeds and resultantly the impugned

decree imposing costs will stand reviewed.

T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE csl

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S DOCUMENTS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 31.3.2015 IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT 87/14 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT ERNAKULAM

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT 87/14 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT ERNAKULAM

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PETITION IA NO.4505/2015

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN IA NO.4505/15

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2015 IN THE REVIEW PETITION IA NO.4505/2015

RESPONDENTS' DOCUMENTS :

NIL