Narayan Dass & Another vs State Bank Of Patiala on 27 October, 2016

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Narayan Dass & Another vs State Bank Of Patiala on 27 October, 2016

Bench: Sanjay Karol

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA




                                                                        .

                                    CMPMO No. 403 of 2016

                                    Date of Decision : October              27 , 2016





    Narayan Dass & another                                                   ...Petitioners




                                                  of
                                    Versus

    State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office
    Indira Market, Mandi Town, Distt. Mandi, HP & anr. ...Respondents
                      rt

    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.


    Whether approved for reporting? No.


                                              1




    For the petitioner           : Mr. Vinod Thakur,              Advocate,       for    the
                                   petitioners.




    For the respondent            : Nemo.






    Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral)

Trial Court, in terms of order dated 20.7.2016, passed in CMA No. 353 of 2016, titled as Narain Dass & another vs. State Bank of Patiala & another (Annexure P-4), rightly dismissed plaintiffs' application so filed under Order Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:27:11 :::HCHP 2

39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, holding the plaintiff entitled to agitate the issue before appropriate forum. On the very .

same count, no fault can be found with the order dated 3.9.2016, passed by the lower appellate authority in plaintiffs' Civil Misc. Appeal No. 29/2016, titled as Narain Dass & anr. vs. State Bank of Patiala & anr. (Annexure P-6).

of Noticeably, as is evident from the response filed by the respondent/Bank, rt proceedings already stand initiated against the borrower before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chandigarh. Petitioners as co-sharers, can be said to be persons aggrieved, entitling them to adjudicate the issue before appropriate forum.

2. As such, present petition, so filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed for the orders passed by the authorities below cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or erroneous.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

October 27 , 2016 (PK) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:27:11 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court