AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Routray, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and presses for orders. Mr. Kar, learned advocate appears on behalf of the bank and prays for extension of time to file his client’s counter. He submits, it will be filed within a week.
Mr. Routray submits by drawing attention to claims in the plaint and prayers in the writ petition to demonstrate that subject matter of claims in the suit included account no.35804079648, not being any of the accounts mentioned in prayer (v). He submits further, his client is not pressing for direction in respect of one of the four accounts being 0553002100025560. He submits, the account number has been erroneously mentioned and, therefore, it be disregarded.
Paragraph 2 in order dated 3rd March, 2022 is reproduced below.
“2. Mr. Kar, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party bank and submits, reason was stated by his client in impugned letter dated 27th December, 2021. The suit, though dismissed for default on 3rd December, 2021, but the Court issued notice, inter alia, to his client to appear in the restoration application. Hence, there is no question of allowing operation of the accounts, till before the suit is finally disposed of. He submits, his client will file counter. Mr. Routray responds, short dates be given.”
It is necessary for the bank to understand that pendency of a restoration application does not automatically restore a suit, let alone any order that may have been passed therein. This is in addition to submissions made by Mr. Routray today, recorded above.
Extension is granted to the bank to file counter. The extension is peremptory. Counter be filed by 4th April, 2022 on advance copy served.
List on 6th April, 2022.
……………………....