Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 616 (JK)

Gh. Qadir Dar & Anr. v. Punjab National Bank

2011-11-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2011
1. Challenge in this revision petition is to order dated 18.12.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar in case titled as Punjab National Bank Vs. Ghulam Qadir Dar and others, whereby application moved by plaintiff-Bank for revival of proceedings of the suit was granted and suit was revived (for short impugned order). 2. It appears that the suit filed as Punjab National Bank vs. Gh. Qadir Dar &, others was consigned to records vide order dated 21.05.2000. Accordingly plaintiff made an application for its restoration/revival of proceedings, was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2008, impugned herein. 3. It appears that the suit was consigned to records on 11.11.91 and the application moved for its revival was also consigned to records on 14.05.1994. During the pendency of said application, plaintiff-respondent herein moved an application under section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (for short C. P. C) on 15.11.1994 for treating the said application for revival of the proceedings, came to be consigned to records and plaintiff-respondent herein moved an application on 04.06.2005 for revival of the suit and taking to its logical end on the ground that the same has not been dismissed but was simply consigned to records and is still on the dockets of the Court, was resisted by the defendants-petitioners herein on various grounds including the ground of delay. 4. Admittedly, the suit was consigned to records vide order dated 11.11.91 and thereafter application for its restoration was also consigned to records. Thus, admittedly, the suit was not dismissed in default but was simply consigned to records. 5. Mr. Qureshi, learned counsel for petitioners admitted that it is a fact that the suit was dismissed in default, but was consigned to records, but argued that the impugned order is illegal on the ground that application under section 151 C.P.C was barred by time. According to him the limitation prescribed for filing application under section 151 C.P.C. is three years. The argument of Mr. Qureshi is devoid of any force for the following reasons. 6. Dismissing a suit in default is a decision, but simply consigning the case to records for default is no decision. Consigned to records means "Dakal Daftar" and can be revived on the motion of any of the interested party. The argument of Mr. Qureshi is devoid of any force for the following reasons. 6. Dismissing a suit in default is a decision, but simply consigning the case to records for default is no decision. Consigned to records means "Dakal Daftar" and can be revived on the motion of any of the interested party. Even the Court suo motu can call the record for civil proceedings or such order can be made on the motion of any interested party. Delay has no role to play in. 7. This Court in Mst. Hajira vs. Mst. Hanifa, C. Revision Petition No. 50/ 1997 has held that the order came to be passed under section 151 CPC and suit was simply consigned to records, it was alive and can be called from records for further proceedings. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para-6 of the judgment herein: "6. From the perusal of the order referred to above, it seems that the suit has been only consigned to records and has not been dismissed. Had the order been that the suit is dismissed in default and ordered to be consigned to records, then it would be deemed that the suit was dismissed. Thus vide order dated 26.12.1995, the suit has only been consigned to records and not dismissed. The file is still alive and can be called from the records for further proceedings, in case the plaintiff or the court so desires. " 8. This Court also in a case reported in 1979-1991 PLRJ&K Rulings 418 has held that the order consigning the case to records (dakal daftar) is not an order of dismissal which would put an end to pendency of the suit. After such an order proceedings may be continued by filing an application by a party and question of limitation does not arise at all. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Punjab Singh & other vs. Teju & others, SLJ 1981 J&K 278 has also held that the order consigning the case to records is not an order in terms of Order 17 Rule 2. 10. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Punjab Singh & other vs. Teju & others, SLJ 1981 J&K 278 has also held that the order consigning the case to records is not an order in terms of Order 17 Rule 2. 10. A Division Bench of Orissa High Court in case Shyam sunder vs. Nilakantha Das, 1956 Orissa 165 (AIR V 43 C48 Sept.) has held as under: "Where the Court has power to act at any time either upon or without application, such power may be exercised if an application is made by a party after the limited time. If the Court invokes its inherent jurisdiction under S. 151, Civil P.C., in the ends of justice, then irrespective of the fact whether the court acts suo motu or on an application, it is clear that limitation would not be taken into consideration. Where the Court amends a decree which is not in conformity with the judgment, it can do so under S. 151 at any time, but no amendment ought to be followed by the Court if it is inexpedient or inequitable to do so where third parties have acquired rights under the erroneous decree without knowledge of the circumstances which would tend to show that the decree was erroneous." 11. This Court in C. Rev. No. 30/ 2011, titled as Bashir Ahmad Shooru Vs. Jawahar Lal Koul, decided on 02.09.2011 has also held that the order consigning the case to records is not an order of dismissal which would put an end to pendency of the suit. 12. In view of the above, no case is made out and the civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed along with all CMPs.