Delhi District Court
Union Bank Of India vs Sh.M.Ghildiyal & Ors on 24 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.K.MALHOTRA, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER (NORTH) DELHI.
Suit No.236/09/85.
Union Bank of India .............Plaintiff
Vs.
Sh.M.Ghildiyal & Ors. .......Defendants
O R D E R.
24.01.2012
01. By way of present order I shall dispose off an application u/o 11 rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC, dated 26.09.2011 as filed on behalf of defendant no.1 thereby, directing the plaintiff to reply and to give particulars and to make admission with supporting documents to the interrogatory as mentioned in Annex.A filed with this application on affidavit.
02. In brief, it is stated in the present application that interrogatory as mentioned in Annex.A are relevant interrogatory relating to the matter in question and if the present application is declined, the defendant no.1 shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, which would not be compensated in any manner. It is claimed that the plaintiff from since beginning, is telling lie under the garb of the pretext that there is question of public money involved, however, before the law, everybody are equal hence the present application.
03. In annexure A i.e. interrogatory, applicant has sought information in respect of insurance policy/general policy of insurance to cover risk factor in respect of small loan. The applicant/defendant no.1 has sought various information such as, complete address of credit Suit No.236/09/85 page 1 of page 3 guarantee corporation DSIGC and in respect of the amount received by the bank in respect of alleged loan of M/s.Delhi Public Co. and also in respect of interse relation between DSIGC with plaintiff under credit Corporation of India (Small Loan) Guarantee Scheme.
04. Plaintiff has not filed any reply to the present application, while submitting that similar application u/o 11 rule 12,13,14,15,16 and 18 r/w section 153 of Evidence Act as filed on behalf of defendant no.1 has already been dismissed by this court vide order dt.04.07.2011 and the present application has been filed as defendant no.1 is bend on avoiding adjudication in the main issue.
05. I have heard ld.counsel for applicant/defendant no.1 as well as ld.counsel for plaintiff and perused the record. I have also gone through the written arguments as filed on behalf of defendant no.1.
06. Ld.counsel for applicant/defendant no.1 argued that the plaintiff has received Rs.78,000/- approximately from DICGC/guarantor/insurance in the year 1982 onwards and the amount of Rs.78,000/- received from DICGC has been reinvested by plaintiff to the commercial borrower and has earned an interest @24% w.e.f.1982 onwards 2011 which fact has not been disclosed by the plaintiff.
07. On the other hand, Ld.Counsel for plaintiff argued that any insurance cover taken by bank to cover the small scale loan, in general, has no relevancy in respect of repayment of loan by the defendant no.1 and the present application is filed intentionally, only to protract the trial.
08. Perusal of record shows that plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,03,807.78p on the grounds that defendant no.1 requested the plaintiff bank for grant of banking facility including overdraft in current account, bill purchases, book debt and term loan against the Suit No.236/09/85 page 2 of page 3 security of stock etc. and defendant no.2 and 3 stood guarantor, which was earlier decreed ex parte vide ex parte judgment dated 10.11.1987 by Hon'ble High Court and thereafter, the ex parte order was set aside. The main contention of the ld. Counsel for applicant/defendant no.1 is that the loan amount was insured with DICGC under self employment scheme and plaintiff has already received 75% of the claimed amount as per scheme and the documents regarding insurance, which fact has also been admitted by the plaintiff in reply to the application filed under RTI by defendant no.1, therefore, interrogatory as filed with application in Annexure 'A' are relevant. Admittedly, the insured cover note was not issued in favour of defendant and there is no privity of contract between the defendant no.1 and DICGC, therefore, the interrogatories to reply whether the plaintiff bank got any amount under insurance from DICGC or whether after recovering from the defaulter, same is to be refunded to the DICGC by the plaintiff bank are not relevant for disposal of present suit of recovery, which is filed on the basis of document i.e. demand promissory note, hypothication of goods agreement, guarantee, statement of account of the plaintiff bank in respect of loan amount of defendant no.1. Similar application u/o 11 rule 12,13,14,15,16 and 18 r/w section 153 of Evidence Act, regarding the discovery of documents on the record, was dismissed by detailed order dt.04.07.2011. The application as filed on behalf of defendant no.1 u/o 11 rule 1 and 2 r/w section 151 CPC, is devoid of any merit and same stands dismissed, subject to cost of Rs.2,500/- to be paid by applicant/defendant no.1 to plaintiff bank.
Announced in open court ( S.K.MALHOTRA ) on 24.01.2012. SCJ/RC/(North)/DELHI Suit No.236/09/85 page 3 of page 3