K.L. Sharma vs UCO Bank and Others

R.S. Verma, J.—Shri K.L. Sharma instituted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 61/4/80 in this Court on 25.3.80. In this writ petition, the petitioner interalia prayed for quashing of order dated 3.4.1979 (Annx. 8) imposing certain punishment upon him. This writ petition was admitted on 1.4.80. Respondents could not be served for quite some time and the case lingered on for service of the respondents. It appears that Shri Mag Raj Kalla, Advocate (as he then was) was engaged by the respondents to contest this writ petition. No reply was filed by the respondents for almost 10 years or so. Shri Mag Raj Kalla, Advocate was eventually elevated as Judge of this Court and file was entrusted to Shri M.R. Singhvi by Shri Mag Raj Kalla. It does not appear that even after Shri M.R. Singhvi took over charge of the case, any reply was filed by the respondents. Shri M.R. Singhvi pleaded no instructions in the matter on 23.10.91. The case was, thereupon heard ex-parte and the writ petition was accepted vide order dated 23.10.91.

Now, the respondents have moved this application for review of the aforesaid order. The ground on which the review is sought is that there was some improper correspondence, which ensued between the respondent-bank and its counsel Shri M.R. Singhvi.

The review petition is opposed on behalf of the writ petitioner.

The case of the respondents-review petitioners is that a letter, copy of which is Annx. R1 was sent by the Divisional Manager of UCO Bank, Jaipur, which mentioned interalia that the bank had received a letter from Shri M.R. Singhvi dated 5.3.91 regarding the case, but the letter did not indicate the next date of hearing. It was further desired that Shri Singhvi may inform the Bank so that further proceedings may be taken up in the matter. At the end of the letter, which was typed written a hand written post-script was added conveying that it was learnt that Shri Singhvi did not know about the date of hearing of the case. Hence he may pay back the fees received by him and may obtain a receipt. Shri M.R. Singhvi felt offenced by this letter. He therefore, wrote a detailed letter dated 24.4.91 to the Managing Director, United Commercial Bank, Head Office, 10-B, T.M. Sarani, Calcutta 700 001 (Annx. Rule 2). In this letter he mentioned the fact that the bank had engaged Shri Mag Ram Kalla as an Advocate and since Shri Singhvi was looking after the office of Shri Kalla, he considered it his bounden duty to apprise the Divisional Manager, Jaipur but despite repeated information nobody turned up. Letter further mentioned that he also informed the Regional Manager Jodhpur but from there also he received revasive replies. He mentioned that he was shocked by receiving letter dated 11.3.91 from the Divisional Manger UCO Bank, Jaipur by which he was called upon to refund the amount of fees and to obtain receipt. He stated that he had not been paid any amount in connection with this case and the letter was highly derogatory to him. He requested the Managing Director to warn officers not to behave in such a manner in future. This was before Shri Singhvi pleaded no instructions in the matter. It appears that Shri Singhvi also wrote a letter dated 29.4.91 to the Divisional Manager, United Commercial Bank, 26-A, Bani Park, Jaipur, wherein he stated that he had been informing the Divisional Manager time and again about the case but the Divisional Manager had not taken any interest in the case. He painted out in this letter that the matter was part heard. By this letter he called upon the Divisional Manager, United Commercial Bank, Jaipur to collect the file and in this very letter he mentioned that after expirty of seven days period, he shall plead no instructions.

It appears that the officers of the respondent-bank slept like legendary Rip Van Winkle and mythological ''Kumbhakar''. The letter dated 24.4.91 (Annx. Rule 2) and 29.4.91 (Annx. Rule 3) were not replied till 7.1.92. It appears that eventually Shri H.S. Madan, Divisional Manager, Jaipur addressed a letter dated 8.1.92 Annx. Rule 4) to Shri M.R. Singhvi, wherein it was mentioned that Shri Madan visited office of Shri M.R. Singhvi on 5.1.92 and Shri Singhvi gave him patient hearing with regard to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 614/80 filed by Shri K.L. Sharma. This letter recited that there had been some mischief at lower level and somebody had interpolated the letter Annx. Rule 1 dated 11.3.91 by adding a hand written postscript to which reference has been made above. It was further pointed out that a separate Divisional Office had been set up at Jodhpur and Jaipur office did not have jurisdiction in the matter. By this letter Shri Singhvi was requested to defend the case of the respondent-bank. It appears that this letter assuaged the feelings of Shri Singhvi and eventually on 20.1.92 this review petition was filed.

In this review petition, it has been pleaded that because of the aforesaid improper correspondence entered into between the respondent-bank and Shri M.R. Singhvi, Shri Singhvi could not defend the Bank and pleaded no instructions. It has been pleaded that the order passed by this Court on 23.10.91 should be reviewed and the writ petition may be restored to its original number and may be heard on merits. It has been pleaded that for lack of proper instructions in time, a serious prejudice has been caused to the Bank. It is further averred that the petitioner was guilty of serious delinquency and if writ petition is not heard on merits he may get scot-free and it may affect the discipline in the Banking Service.

The review petition has been opposed on behalf of the writ petitioner Shri K.L. Sharma. The main thrust of the contention of the writ petitioner is that the respondent bank did not brother to take care of the case for long long period of 10 years. It has been submitted that the respondents have failed to show as to who had inserted the hand written script in Annx. 1 It is submitted that the respondent-Bank has acted in a very negligent manner. By reviewing the order, this Court would be putting premium on the negligence and carelessness of the officers of the Bank.

Mr. M.R. Singhvi in reply has submitted that this is true that the. matter has become very old and the officers of the Bank have been negligent and careless, yet the matter needs probe and the petitioner can be compensated by costs for the inconvenience caused to him.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in some great details and I am of the view that officers of the respondent-Bank had acted in a very casual, cavalier and negligent manner. Nationalised Banks must act as model litigant and should take cases in the spirit that its employees get evenhanded justice at an early date. They cannot act in the manner in which a private litigant acts. In the present case, the respondents have themselves invited the situation, and they must thank themselves for this.

However dictates of justice require that so far as possible matters should be heard on merits so that justice is done to both the sides. UCO Bank is a huge organisation and it cannot be made to suffer because of negligence or callousness on the part of its subordinate uninion. Keeping all these things in mind, I am of the view that this review petition should be accepted and the matter should be heard at an early date. However, the respondent-Bank shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the petitioner for the misery and agony they have inflicted upon him by not curing for the case for a period of almost 10 years. The costs should be paid within a period of two weeks from today. The review petition recites that reply to the writ petition has already been filed and copy thereof has been supplied to the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. The order passed by me on 23.10.91 is revoked. The writ petition may itself be listed for hearing on 01.9.1993. If the petitioner wants to file any rejoinder to the reply, he may do so within a week of receiving the costs imposed by this Court. It may be stated that if the costs are not paid within the period stipulated above, the review petition shall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the Bench.