Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 411 (MP)

Ramniwas Gupta v. Bank of Baroda

2015-04-09

SUJOY PAUL

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 3.4.2014 whereby the applications of the petitioner preferred under Order 16 Rule 1 and 6 CPC and under Order 11 Rule 12CPC were rejected by the Court below. 2. Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the said order by contending that the court below has committed an error in rejecting the said application. By taking this Court to the application Annexure P-8, it is contended that the prayer before court below was that application dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure P-8) be allowed and original sale deeds and other documents which are related with the loan account of plaintiffs and respondents No. 3 & 4 be summoned. This prayer of summoning was from ICICI Bank and Bank of Badoda. It is contended that the court below has only dealt with the aspect of summoning the original sale deeds from office of Registrar and opined that the petitioner can obtain certified copy of the same which can be admitted in evidence as secondary evidence. The other aspect is not dealt with which amounts to non-application of mind. He submits that the other documents are necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter. Shri Prashant Sharma further submits that his application preferred under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC was containing same prayer. 3. Prayer is opposed by Sarvshri Suresh Agrawal, Arun Dudawat and P.C. Chandil, Advocates. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 5. It is true that in the application Annexure P-8, the petitioners' relief was many fold as stated above. However, the written statement of respondents No. 3 & 4 shows that they have taken a categorical stand that at the time of sale of property by defendants No. 3 & 4 to the plaintiff, the entire loan amount was paid and original documents which were kept with defendant No. 2 as mortgage were obtained by defendant No. 3 & 4. In turn, the said documents were handed over by them to the plaintiff. Plaintiff himself deposited those documents as mortgage before respondent No. 2-Bank. In reply of miscellaneous application, defendant No. 2 stated that the original documents were received by the plaintiff. In turn, the said documents were handed over by them to the plaintiff. Plaintiff himself deposited those documents as mortgage before respondent No. 2-Bank. In reply of miscellaneous application, defendant No. 2 stated that the original documents were received by the plaintiff. In turn, plaintiff was required to deposit it in the Bank but said documents were not deposited by the plaintiff before the Bank. Hence, the stand was taken that the Bank does not have the desired documents and, therefore, the question of its production does not arise. 6. Shri Prashant Sharma, during the course of argument, fairly stated that the finding of court below in as much as it is held that the certified copies of sale deeds can be obtained and produced as secondary evidence has no legal flaw. He confined his attack with regard to other documents which were desired in application Annexure P-8. The stand of respondent is narrated above. The court below in last para of the order made it clear that similar application of petitioner has already been decided by the court below. Counsel for defendant No. 2 has made a specific stand that he has no other relevant document which can be produced. In my view, the petitioner has not shown any material to demonstrate that the documents desired (other than sale deeds) are in possession of the bank. 7. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Court below has taken a plausible view. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner. This view is taken in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 . In the present case, there is no such flaw which requires interference. Petition is dismissed. No cost.