Karnataka High Court
Sujatha vs Indian Bank on 17 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: ILR1996KAR553, 1996(1)KARLJ310, 1996 A I H C 2086, (1996) 3 CIVLJ 323, (1996) 2 CURCC 273, (1996) 1 KANT LJ 310
ORDER Kumar Rajaratnam, J.
1. A suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Bank for recovery of amount owing to the Bank. After service of notice, the defendant put in his appearance and filed the written statement resisting the suit filed by the plaintiff-Bank. Thereafter the suit was posted for plaintiff's evidence to 17.6.1991. On 17.6.1991 P.W.1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 were marked as Exhibits. The defendant remained absent. After hearing the learned Counsel for the plaintiff the suit was posted for Judgment to 22.6.1991. On 19.6.1991, the defendant came forward with an application under Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court to advance the case from 22.6.199.1 to 19.6.1991. The defendant filed another application under Section 18 Rule 17A read with Section 151 CPC requesting the Court to recall the order dated 17.6.1991 and to give an opportunity to contest the suit.
2. The Trial Court relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court , Arjun Singh vs Mohindra kumar and Co. wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows :
"The opening words of Order 9 Rule 7 are 'Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte'. Obviously they assume that there is to be a hearing on the date to which the suit stands adjourned. If the entirety of the 'hearing' of the suit has been completed and the Court being competent to pronounce the judgment then and there, adjourns the suit merely for the purpose of pronouncing judgment under Order 20 Rule 1, there is clearly no adjournment of 'the hearing' of the suit, for there is nothing more to be heard in the suit. In such a case Order IX, Rule 7 could have no application and the matter would stand at the stage of Order IX Rule 6 to be followed up by the passing of an exparte decree making Rule 13 the only provision in Order IX applicable."
In other words, once the Court post the case for Judgment, there can be no application to recall or advance the hearing for any purpose other than pronouncement of judgment. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application made by the defendant and went on to decide the matter on the basis of the written statement and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-Bank. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition.
3. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the purpose of business agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 4% p.a. In consideration of receipt of amount, the defendant had executed pro-note and agreement of Agricultural Term Loan in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendant failed to repay the amount inspite of repeated demands, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice and since the amount was not forthcoming, plaintiff filed the suit.
4. The defendant resisted the suit as not maintainable contending that the defendant was not liable to pay the suit claim or any other sum. According to defendant, he had signed several papers and blank forms before disbursing the money directly to the vendor of the cow. The defendant purchased one HF Cross-Breed Cow for Rs. 6,000/- and the said cow was insured with the United India Insurance Company. The cow purchased by the defendant fell ill and the same was treated by the Doctors at Hebbal Veterinary College. Inspite of best treatment given by the Doctors the cow succumbed to the ailment on 29.8.1989. Immediately thereafter, the defendant took Post-Mortem Certificate and Insurance tag to the Bank so as to enable them to claim Insurance amount. The Bank Manager having received the copy of Post-Mortem Report, returned the insurance tag to the defendant to be handed over to him at the time of settlement of Insurance claim. The Bank is liable to make good the loss suffered by the defendant due to their negligence. The defendant was not liable to pay the sum and the loan was covered under the "Agricultural loan" scheme. The contention of the plaintiff was that there was nothing on record to show that the cow was purchased by the defendant and the said cow was insured by the plaintiff-Bank With the United India Insurance Company. Even if it was insured, it is the contention of the plaintiff-Bank that the defendant did not inform the plaintiff-Bank about the purchase of the cow and that the cow was insured.
5. The Trial Court, giving credit to the money that had been already paid by the defendant, decreed the suit for Rs. 4,559.75 less Rs. 285/- with costs and future interest at 4% p.a. I do not find any ground to interfere in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, while exercising my powers under Revision. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The judgment and the decree of the Trial Court stands confirmed .