AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The challenges the order passed below Exhibit-11 on 4.4.2026. The said application i.e. Exhibit-11, filed in Special Civil Suit No.28/2025. The said suit is filed by the petitioner against the defendant for recovery of money.
By taking me through the contents of the plaint it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff and the defendant are related to each other. He points me out para 16 of the plaint. On perusal of the bank statement, the plaintiff found that the entry of Rs.6,60,000/- was put in FDR by his deceased father and the said has been fraudulently withdrawn by the defendant herein claiming to be a nominee. He also points me out a written statement wherein the said fact has been admitted. It is his contention that as per the settled principle of law that nominee is only the custodian of the property and has no right to the said amount of fixed deposit.
As can be seen from the facts in the matter that in this background an application under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. However, it would be noteworthy to reproduce the prayer in the said application, which is at page 35.
“(i)It is, therefore, requested that the Defendant be directed to deposit the amount of Rs.6,60,000/- with Interest thereon in the Court which the Defendant has transferred in her Account being the Nominee of late Shabbir Husain Batawala, in the interest of justice.
(ii)Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly be granted.”
It is, therefore, apparent that the application filed neither attracted the provisions of Order 11, Rule 14 which only speaks about production of documents. As can be seen from the prayer clause a direction was sought that a direction to deposit the amount of Rs.6,60,000/- with interest was sought.
The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 222 and more particularly paras 36 and 41 thereof, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India has issued certain direction to curtail the delay in execution proceedings. The reliance placed on the said judgment is my considered opinion misconceived since it is with respect to the execution proceedings. As far as provisions of Order 11, Rule 14 is concerned it simply says about production of documents, however, as stated supra, a direction is sought for deposit the amount which according to the petitioner has been admitted in written statement.
The Trial Court in its own discretion and wisdom has taken into consideration all these facts and passed the impugned order. The reasoning as found in paras 7, 8, 9, and 10 cannot be said to be perverse. The petition is misconceived and liable to be rejected.
The petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. No costs.