Indian Bank v. S.N. Engineers & Suppliers & Anr.

July 18, 2017

Civil Appeal No(s). 1686 of 2010

Respondent No. 1 filed a suit, inter alia, for a decree of recovery of Rs. 10,71,730.93 p. against the defendants jointly and/or severally; and for a decree for Rs. 9,51,813.93 p. against the defendant No. 2 (appellant herein). M/s. A.J. Forgings Private Limited, Respondent No. 2 in the appeal has been set ex parte.

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

(L. Nageswara Rao and Navin Sinha, JJ.)

Indian Bank _____________________________________ Appellant

S.N. Engineers & Suppliers & Anr. ________________ Respondent(s)

Civil Appeal No(s). 1686 of 2010, decided on July 18, 2017

The Order of the court was delivered by

Order

1. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit, inter alia, for a decree of recovery of Rs. 10,71,730.93 p. against the defendants jointly and/or severally; and for a decree for Rs. 9,51,813.93 p. against the defendant No. 2 (appellant herein). M/s. A.J. Forgings Private Limited, Respondent No. 2 in the appeal has been set ex parte.

2. The averments in the plaint filed in the suit refer to an undertaking given by the appellant by letter dated 1^st September, 1992 to honor the cheques issued by the Respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 1) not exceeding Rs. 6,80,000/-. A written statement was filed by the appellant (defendant No. 2) in the suit wherein there has been no specific denial about the undertaking given by it by letter dated 1^st September, 1992. On the other hand, the appellant has stated in paragraph 4 of the written statement that only a copy of the letter dated 1^st September, 1992 was produced which does not carry a seal of the Bank.

3. An application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein (plaintiff in the suit) for passing a judgment on admission which was allowed by the learned single judge of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 15^th December, 1995 as modified by order dated 3^rd March, 1997. The said judgment and order dated 15 December, 1995 as modified by order dated 3^rd March, 1997 was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 28^th February, 2008. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the appellant Bank.

4. The Trial Judge, while allowing the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC held that the appellant failed to produce the original letter dated 01.09.1992. Instead, a Xerox copy of the said letter was filed. The judgment of the trial Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench on the ground that the Appellant made a deliberate attempt to frustrate the legal right of Respondent No. 1.

5. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

———

You may also like