Canara Bank vs Bikram Singh

Satish Kumar Mittal , J.—Canara Bank has filed this revision petition against the order dated 3.9.1997, passed by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, closing the evidence of the Petitioner bank by order of the court and consequently, dismissing its suit under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC.

In the present case, the Petitioner bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,016/- against the Respondent. As per the case of the Petitioner bank, on 8.9.1988, the Respondent had taken a loan of Rs. 9,000/- from the Petitioner bank for purchase of buffalos. When the said loan amount was not re-paid, the instant suit was filed by the Petitioner bank.

The Defendant (Respondent herein) contested the aforesaid suit taking several pleas, including the plea that he had not taken any loan from the Petitioner bank and did not execute any document.

After framing the issues, the Petitioner bank was provided several opportunities to lead its evidence, but in spite of that, when the Petitioner bank did not lead any evidence, last opportunity was granted to it for 3.9.1997 and on that day also, no evidence was led by the Petitioner bank. Consequently, evidence of the Petitioner bank was closed by order of the court; and there and then the trial court dismissed the suit under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC, as there was no evidence led by the Petitioner bank in support of its case.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner bank and perused the impugned order.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner bank could not explain any reason for not leading evidence, in spite of availing several opportunities. Even in the grounds of revision, no such explanation is coming forth. The suit amount in the present suit is only of Rs. 7,016/-. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the order, passed by the learned trial court, as in spite of several opportunities granted to the Petitioner bank, it did not lead any evidence. Since there was no evidence in support of the claim of the Petitioner bank, the trial court was fully justified in dismissing the suit under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out.

Dismissed.