Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 684 (PNJ)

Punjab National Bank, Nurmahal v. Balbir Kaur

2003-05-12

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - This case is a classical illustration where the provisions of law and procedure have been misused to delay the free flow of justice. The most unfortunate part is that the delaying tacties have been adopted by the Punjab National Bank which is a nationalised bank and instrumentality of the State. 2. A suit for declaration was filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Balbir Kaur to the effect that she is the depositor-claimant of the fixed deposit receipts with the bank and the aforesaid fixed deposit receipt are lying with defendant No. 2 Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Civil Lines, Jalandhar. The plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to the total value of the aforesaid fixed deposit receipts including the interest thereupon. Additionally, permanent injunction was claimed for restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3 to release the aforesaid FDRs and interest thereupon to defendant No. 4 Manohar Singh or his representatives, nominees etc. 3. In the array of the parties, the following were arrayed as defendants : "1. Punjab National Bank, Head Office, 7, Bhikhaji Cama Palace, New Delhi, through its Chairman. 2. Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Civil Lines Jalandhar, through its Regional Manger. 3. Punjab National Bank, Mandi Road, Narmahal, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar through its Branch Manager. 4. Manohar Singh r/o village Paniali Kalan, District Nawanshar." 4. Upon notice of the suit, the defendants appeared. Although the Punjab National Bank (defendants No. 1 to 3) was represented by one counsel but instead of filing a written statement it chose to file an application under (Order) 1 rule 10(2) CPC. The prayer made in the application is to strike out the names of defendants No. 1 and 2 being unnecessary parties. In the aforesaid application, the defendants claimed that the plaintiff had not shown any cause of action arising against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, the aforesaid defendants No. 1 and 2 were wholly unnecessary parties. It was prayed that their names be deleted from the array of the defendants. The aforesaid application of the defendants was contested by the plaintiff. She took up preliminary objection that the said application was not maintainable. 1 and 2 and, therefore, the aforesaid defendants No. 1 and 2 were wholly unnecessary parties. It was prayed that their names be deleted from the array of the defendants. The aforesaid application of the defendants was contested by the plaintiff. She took up preliminary objection that the said application was not maintainable. It was further maintained by the plaintiff that the bank was a body corporate and, therefore, for the purposes of suing the said Bank, the Principal and Head Office of the Bank had been arrayed as defendants No. 1, whereas on averments made in the plaint, defendants No. 2 and 3 were necessary parties. 5. The learned trial Court vide its order dated January 15, 2002 dismissed the application of the defendant. The case was adjourned to January 24, 2002 for filing a written statement. Instead of filing the written statement, the defendants chose to challenge the aforesaid order by filing the present revision petition in this Court. 6. In have heard Shri H.R. Bansal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Shri Bansal, during the course of arguments, has merely reiterated the pleas raised by the petitioners bank in the application filed before the learned trial Court and maintained that in fact defendants No. 1 and 2 were not required to be arrayed as parties in the suit and, therefore, their names were liable to be deleted from the array of the defendants. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter but find myself unable to agree with the same. It is apparent from the memo of the parties of the present revision petition as well that all the three defendants, namely, the head office, the regional office and the branch office of the Punjab National Bank have joined as petitioners in the present petition. They all are represented by Shri H.R. Bansal, Advocate. In these circumstances, it is not shown as to what prejudice has been caused to them by arraying them as defendants in the suit filed by the plaintiff. 9. Even otherwise, specific case set up by the plaintiff is that the fixed deposit receipts claimed by the plaintiff are lying with the regional office of the Punjab National Bank defendant No. 2. The head office of the Punjab National Bank defendant No. 1 has been arrayed as a proper party being the principal office of the bank. 9. Even otherwise, specific case set up by the plaintiff is that the fixed deposit receipts claimed by the plaintiff are lying with the regional office of the Punjab National Bank defendant No. 2. The head office of the Punjab National Bank defendant No. 1 has been arrayed as a proper party being the principal office of the bank. It was only a proper party for suing the bank. 10. It is apparent that by filing the aforesaid application before the learned trial Court and then taking the matter to this Court through the present revision petition the entire effort of the bank was to delay the proceedings. Nothing meaningful has been argued to show that the claim made by the petitioners in the application filed before the learned trial Court had any basis or was otherwise sustainable. 11. Under these circumstances, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. Since the petitioners bank has chosen to unnecessary drag the matter, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The aforesaid costs shall be a condition precedent for filing the written statement by the bank before the learned trial Court. With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition is dismissed with costs as aforesaid. Revision dismissed.