Branch Manager Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Central Bank Of India

Sathish Ninan, J.

The applications seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the delay, were dismissed by the trial court. The defendants are in appeal.

The suit was decreed exparte on 27.10.2009. The application to set aside exparte was filed on 25.10.2021 with a delay of 4,377 days (more than 11 years). The reason stated for the delay is that, the then manager of the defendant-Bank was transferred to another branch and he omitted to handover the details with regard to the suit, to the successor. It was only on receipt of notice in the execution petition that they came to know about the exparte decree.

The applications were opposed by the plaintiff.

The trial court found the delay is not satisfactorily explained, and accordingly dismissed the applications.

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  on  either sides.

As noticed, the delay involved in seeking to set aside the exparte decree is more than 11 years. Of course, rather than the extent of the delay, it is the reason for the delay which is to be considered. Though the defendants have stated that the then manager in office was transferred, the date on which he was transferred was not mentioned. As to when his successor in office assumed charge has not been mentioned. Who was the successor in office is not stated. Such successor in office was not examined to prove the contention that he was not informed about the suit.

Though it is stated that the defendants came to know about the exparte decree only on receipt of notice in the execution petition, the date on which such notice was received is not disclosed.

As noticed by the trial court, the defendants do not have a case that the counsel did not intimate them about the case. The only person, who was examined on behalf of the defendants, is the manager in office at the time of giving evidence. He has no direct knowledge about the facts.

At variance from the explanation offered in the application, PW1 has put forward an entirely new case that, the counsel who was representing the Bank omitted to update the Bank about the case and that the counsel subsequently passed away.

The trial court has found that the explanation offered for the inordinate delay of more than 11 years is far from satisfactory. The court has exercised its discretion and has refused to condone the delay. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. The exercise of discretion by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse.

Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.