Research › Browse › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 728 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. Jagdishbhai C. Patel

1998-11-21

S.K.KESHOTE

body1998
S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) BY this civil application, prayer has been made by the petitioner-State of Gujarat for condonation of delay of 19 days caused in filing of civil revision application against the order of 6th Joint Civil Judge, (J. D.) Baroda dated 23. 6. 1997 in Court Fees Reference no. 25 of 1995. ( 3 ) THOUGH prima facie I am satisfied that delay has satisfactorily been explained but still I do not consider it to be a fit case to condone the delay for the obvious reason that, I do not find any merits in the civil revision application itself. Under the impugned order, the Trial Court has decided that the Court fees of Rs. 30/- paid on plaint by the petitioner is sufficient. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the State Government that on the plaint the Court fees of Rs. 750/- should have been paid by the plaintiff as against which he paid Court fee of Rs. 30/- only. Even if it is taken that the State Government is correct but looking to the disputed amount of Court fees, I do not consider it to be a fit case where the revisional court should interfere in such petty and small matter. The State Government should not have also wasted the public money in such petty and small matter. Instead of wasting it in the litigation it should have been utilised for some other public cause and benefits. ( 5 ) ONLY anxiety which has been projected before this Court by the learned counsel for the State Government is that though in this case the disputed amount of Court fees may be small but they have filed this revision application on the question of principle. ( 6 ) EVEN if it is taken to be correct then too, I do not appreciate this act of the State government to approach this Court to take the decision on question of law looking to the disputed amount of Court fees to be paid by the plaintiff. Filing of this revision application for the purpose aforesaid that is to take decision on question of law is not fair and reasonable also from the side of the State of Gujarat, a welfare State. In the matter of dispute regarding Rs. Filing of this revision application for the purpose aforesaid that is to take decision on question of law is not fair and reasonable also from the side of the State of Gujarat, a welfare State. In the matter of dispute regarding Rs. 750/-, it is normally not expected from the other side, here the plaintiff to spend heavy expenses of litigation to oppose the revision application filed by the State of Gujarat in the matter. In this case, it proves to be correct also. This Court has issued notice of the civil application to the respondent. The respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff and two other respondents are the defendants in the suit. It is significant to note that in substance it is a lis in between the State of Gujarat on one hand, and the plaintiff on other, but the real contesting party has not put appearance. On behalf of State Bank of india, Shri Pranav G. Desai put appearance. ( 7 ) THE respondent No. 2 State Bank of India and the respondent No. 3 M. G. S. Ltd. are neither necessary nor proper party to this revision application as well as the civil application. By impleading the person as party who are neither proper or necessary party to the suit or to this civil application and civil revision application, it costs heavily to them of the litigation expenses where they decides to contest the same. It is a fact of which a judicial notice can be taken that on receipt of notice of a litigation from the Court, normal approach of the litigants is to contact an advocate and put appearance therein as ordinary litigant is not in a position to himself examine his own course whether he has to put appearance in this litigation or not. However, there is a category of litigants to which the state bank of India belongs, who have their own law officers or more precisely a law department headed by experts and there the matter can be examined whether in the matter, the Bank should put appearance or not. ( 8 ) IN the State of Gujarat, I am constrained to observe that sorry state of affairs are prevailing. ( 8 ) IN the State of Gujarat, I am constrained to observe that sorry state of affairs are prevailing. Neither its law department nor its concerned administrative department that is with reference to the case are taking any pain or undertaking any exercise to minutely examine the cases to be filed in the Courts and particularly with reference to who are the persons to be impleaded as party to the litigation. It is true and what it is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the revision applications, appeals or other proceedings before this Court arising from the order passed by the subordinate Courts the parties are impleaded therein as per what the parties were there in the subordinate Court. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case the parties are not impleaded in the litigation before this Court as per what the parties arc there in the subordinate Court, the registry of this Court raised objection. So if we go by this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner then one thing is clearly reflected that the parties are being impleaded in the litigation before this Court as the State of Gujarat is afraid of the objections which are being raised by the registry. Though this arguments appears to be attractive at first flash but if we go deep in the matter it is wholly baseless. It is not the registry which has to decide which are the persons to be impleaded as parties in the revision application. There are cases after cases where though in the subordinate Court many more parties are there but for the purpose of appeal or revision before this Court out of which few may be necessary or proper party therein. An attempt has to he made or it is also desirable from the litigants who are filing the appeals or revision applications before this Court to be very cautious and careful in impleading the parties so that the parties who are neither proper nor necessary party to the lis may not be put to unnecessary harassment and expenses of litigation. This objection even if is raised by the registry then the petitioner should have explained the same and the registry is not the final authority in the matter. This objection even if is raised by the registry then the petitioner should have explained the same and the registry is not the final authority in the matter. They may give their explanation to the impleadment of the parties and if the registry is not satisfied then the matter has to be placed in the Court and the Court will pass the appropriate order. But merely because what they feel it to he a hurdle which has to be crossed by the brief before it reaches to the Court, the impleadment of parties in the manner what it is suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly undesirable. As in the present case law department and the administrative department have not examined the matter properly, these two defendants No. 2 and 3 have been impleaded to this civil revision application. It is not gainsay that the Government advocate also is equally responsible to see that before filing of the case in this Court, only those persons are being impleaded as a party to the appeals or revision applications, who are necessary or proper party thereto. The Government advocate should not be led by the fact that all the parties who are party to the litigation in the subordinate Court are to be impleaded as party in the first appeal or civil revision application. They being the legal experts owe a duty to see that the persons who are neither necessary nor proper party to the litigation before this Court are not being harassed or made subjected to heavy expenses of litigation. ( 10 ) AS stated earlier, it is equally the responsibility of the State Bank of India who has its own legal department to examine the case minutely whether in response to the court notice it has to put appearance in the case or not. It is not out of context to state that the State Bank of India if spends money towards any litigation, in which it is not affected by the orders to be passed by this Court, is nothing but only wastage of public money. It is not out of context to state that the State Bank of India if spends money towards any litigation, in which it is not affected by the orders to be passed by this Court, is nothing but only wastage of public money. It is a simple matter where the legal department of the State Bank of India could have examined that, what is the impugned order and what are the consequences of non-defending of the case and above that how the right of State Bank of India is likely to be adversely affected in case where the revision application is allowed by this Court. I am confident that in case this matter would have been examined by the State Bank of India in the context aforesaid, then certainly its officers would have advise not to contest this revision application. ( 11 ) THEN comes the stage where the advocate, who has been approached by the State bank of India for engaging his services to defend it in the civil revision application, owes a duty to see that unnecessarily money of the Bank is not wasted in defending a litigation in which ultimately nothing is likely to adversely affect to it even in the eventuality of its acceptance. Shri Pranav G. Desai has given out to the Court that in such matters he always advise the Bank not to engage any advocate. In support of this, he placed for the perusal of this Court, a copy of letter dated 17th November, 1998 wrote to the Bank. This letter is in matter of civil revision application No. 654/98 and that is also what he contended is in respect to identical matter. He further states that he has not filed any vakalatnama in this case and he will advise also to the Bank that their presence is not necessary in the matter. Otherwise also, I am deciding this revision application today finally there is no occassion by the respondent No. 2 to file any vakalatnama in this case. ( 12 ) FROM the aforesaid discussion it is clear that both the officers of the State government and the State Bank of India are not vigilant of their duties and concerned of the public money. They should take all care and precautions in the litigation which is filed against the Bank. Though in this case the State Bank of India, as what Mr. They should take all care and precautions in the litigation which is filed against the Bank. Though in this case the State Bank of India, as what Mr. Pranav G. Desai has given out, will not filed any vakalatnama and consequently no payment of fees, i do not consider it to be a fit case where any order has to be passed against the State of gujarat for payment of costs of this litigation to the defendant-respondent No. 2. However, in future, the State of Gujarat should be very careful in these matters. ( 13 ) I do not consider it to be a fit case to interfere with the impugned order in this civil revision application. I do not consider it to be appropriate to decide the civil application on merits and condone the delay in filing of this civil revision application. ( 14 ) IN the result, both the civil application and civil revision applications are dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the General Manager, S. B. I. State Bank Bhavan, madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400 021 and Chief Secretary of the Government of gujarat, Gandhinagar. .