High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Deepak Kumar Nayyer v. Punjab Nationl Bank & Others - CIVIL REVISION No. 454 of 2006  RD-AH 20106 (28 November 2006)
Court No. 24
Civil Revision No. 454 of 2006
Deepak Kumar Nayyer Vs. Punjab National Bank & others
Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.
Corrected certified copy of the formal order has been filed. It be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
This revision challenges the order dated 4.10.2006 whereby petitioner's application under Order XI Rule 12 C.P.C. for discovery of certain documents was rejected by the court below.
A suit for recovery of certain amount from the petitioner-defendant is pending in the trial court wherein certain forgeries and frauds have been alleged by the plaintiff against the defendant-applicant and it is claimed that by commission of such misconduct the petitioner had defrauded the bank and caused loss to it to the tune of Rs. Twelve Lacs and odd.
In defence all the allegations in the plaint have been denied categorically and it is pleaded that no such loss was occasioned to the bank by any conduct of the defendant while discharging his duty as Bank Manager.
While discharging duty as Bank Manager certain act is required to be done by the Bank Manager also and those functions performed by the Bank Manager are said to be making entries and giving one or the other directions to his subordinates for doing or not doing some acts. What are those documents they are within the knowledge of the defendant and on the basis of those documents relating to the alleged loan the allegations have been made regarding commission of fraud and causing loss to the plaintiff bank. All those documents as a whole have been summoned and their number is more than ten. The entire bulk of documents have been required to be summoned by the petitioner-applicant through the petition moved under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 C.P.C. The court has found that the summoning of the entire bulk of documents is not necessary in the present case and the plaintiff has to prove its case by its own evidence and the burden lies upon it only. If any part of the documents which supports its case has to be necessarily produced and proved before the court. If all these documents have not been filed and proved by the plaintiff that itself denotes to the fact that these registers and reports do not contain or make reflection to any alleged adverse conduct of the revisionist Bank Manager. Now if any part of the entries of those bulk of documents are required in defence which could demonstrate to the fact that the defendant is innocent in the present matter, he has to be very specific about that part of the documents and for that purpose the interrogatories would have been certified by the defendant to the plaintiff for definite replies in respect thereto. Instead of making request under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 C.P.C. for summoning the entire register and bulky reports particularly interrogatories with regard to the relevant entries in those documents could have been submitted and served by the defendant upon the plaintiff so that precise reply to the same would have been obtained for putting up the proper defence in the matter. The defendant-petitioner for no satisfactory reason did not adopt to this procedure and now when the recording of oral evidence in the case has commenced he has made a prayer under Rules 12 and 14 of Order 11 C.P.C. which appears to be wholly unjustified. These bulky documents in fact are not required to be summoned in the court instead specific interrogatory should have been served and can still be served upon the plaintiff for obtaining definite reply to it so that proper defence in the case could be presented or the case taken by the plaintiff could be discredited with its help. In these circumstances if the court below has rejected the application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 C.P.C., I do not find that there is any infirmity in the same as to occasion an interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The case law of Shri M.L. Sethi Vs. Shri R.P. Kapur, 1972 (2) SCC 427 cited by the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
The revision is without merits and is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.