Arti Bhardwaj vs Indian Overseas Bank

Ranjit Singh, J

The prayer made by the appellants for summoning the witnesses for proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties has been rejected by the Tribunal below. Aggrieved against the said order, they have filed the present appeal.

This appeal is filed with a delay of 36 days. Application seeking condonation of delay has been filed along with the appeal.

It is considered appropriate to hear the appellant on merit before considering whether notice need to be issued on the application seeking condonation of delay. In case the appeal is found containing any merit then the plea for condoning the delay in filing the appeal can be considered.

The application filed by the appellants is under Order V read with section 151 CPC for summoning the witnesses. It is averred in the application that the defendant/appellant had exhibited the documents relied upon by them and thus these are on record of the Tribunal below. As per the appellants, the documents pertaining to approval of loan by the Chief Manager along with relevant documents are in the possession of the bank and despite best efforts the original could not be brought before the Tribunal below unless these are summoned from the bank. Accordingly, it was averred that the Tribunal Play summon the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Naraina Branch, New Delhi with the record pertaining to the advance granted/approved along with the documents listed in, the application. It is further averred that the loan was enhanced and sanctioned by the bank, but thereafter, deliberately was spoiled by Mr. Ajay Sinha, the Chief Manager of the Bank who demanded bribe from the appellants. It is also state-d that some documents could be produced only by DGM, Regional Office of the bank. Hence, the prayer was to summon DGM, Regional Office of the bank along with documents like reliving order dated 7.8.2010 issued in favour of Mr. Ajay Kumara and DGM Regional Office, Indian Overseas Bank, IIIrd Floor, Rachna Building 2, Rajendra Place, New Delhi with letters dated 7.8.2011 and other letters written to the DGM in this regard. Prayer further was to summon Principal, St. Mary Convent School, Cantt, Varanasi along with the progress report of Master Harsh Sinha, S/o. Mr. Aiayu Sinha. It is prayed before the Tribunal below that these documents were needed for just and proper adjudication of the dispute.

After hearing the counsel, the Tribunal found the prayer made in the application was frivolous and was just adopted as a delaying tactics to prolong the proceedings. The application was accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

The counsel for the appellants has made a feverish prayer to summon the witness and documents Despite repeated queries, the counsel could not show any justification as to why there is a need to summon the DGM or for that matter the previous Chief Manager against whom allegations are made. Counsel for the appellants kept on repeating that the said Manager had spoiled the loan of the appellants when the appellant could not help the said Manager in getting progress of his son or admission of his son in St. Mary Convent School. I find that the prayer made by the appellants for summoning these witnesses have no connection with the liability which arose against them on account of they having taken this loan from the bank and in defaulting to clear the loan.

Counsel also could not justify as to how the application for summoning the witnesses under Order 5 read with section 151 CPC could be maintained. When confronted with this legal position, counsel pleads that the heading may not be material, but the maintainability of the application could be seen and determined from the contents and the prayer made in the application. When asked to show as to under what provision he could maintain this application, counsel could not say anything in this regard.

The Tribunal, in my view, has rightly observed that this a frivolous application without any basis. Counsel himself conceded that the appellants are liable to repay the loan which they had taken from the bank, but were disputing the liability on account of penal or other interest charged for which they claimed that they are not liable because of the conduct and action of the previous Manager. How the conduct of a Manager can excuse a person from discharging contracted liability would be beyond comprehension. I find that this appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed, am resisting from imposing and cost on the appellants for misusing the process of this Tribunal by filing such appeal.