Delhi High Court - Orders
Icici Bank Ltd vs Manoj Kumar on 20 January, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~25 (2022 Cause List)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 70/2022
ICICI BANK LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms Chetna Bhalla, Advocate with
Mr. Sanjeev Bakshi and Mr. Kewal
Verma, Officers
versus
MANOJ KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 20.01.2022 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
CM APPL. 3635/2022(exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 70/2022
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed against an order dated 14.12.2021, which concerns service of the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff upon the respondent-defendant.
2. By an order dated 11.10.2021, the Trial Court noted that the summons sent to the respondent-defendant were received back from both addresses with the report that no such person was found available and his office address was found locked. The Trial Court also recorded as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:21.01.2022 10:05:55 CM(M)70/2022 Page 1 of 3 follows:-
"Today proceedings were conducted through physical hearing.
As per report of process server, address of the defendant was not found.
Summons sent to the defendant at his both the addresses through speed post received back unserved with the report that no such person found available and his office address was found locked.
As per Rules the address of the borrower is verified alongwith his other particulars before sanctioning of the loan but in view of the above report, a doubt has arisen whether the loan was given to a fake person or not and whether it was given after proper verification or not.
Issue fresh summons of the suit to the defendant on filing PF for 14-12-2021 through process server, speed post, registered cover and courier and E-mail address, if available, through process serving agency of the court. Meanwhile, counsel for the plaintiff is directed to take the dasti process at the address already given in the plaint and handover the same to the concerned Manager/ Verifying Officer to get it served. They will file affidavits also mentioning therein what steps they had taken before sanctioning the loan to verify the address of the defendant and now what steps have been taken to search the defendant."
3. When the matter was next listed before the Trial Court on 14.12.2021, the impugned order was passed, stating that the order dated 11.10.2021 had not been complied with for service on the respondent- defendant through the Verifying Officer/Manager. Upon the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff for one more opportunity to comply with the order, the following order was passed:-
"Counsel for the plaintiff prayed for one more opportunity for compliance of previous order. Last and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:21.01.2022 10:05:55 CM(M)70/2022 Page 2 of 3 final opportunity is granted to comply with previous order subject to cost of ₹10,000/- to be deposited in DLSA, otherwise, the case will be dismissed on the next date of hearing.
Put up this matter on 16-02-2022 for compliance of previous order. The deposit of cost receipt alongwith process fee form be filed within seven days failing which the case will be dismissed for non-prosecution. AR of the bank has to collect the dasti process and handover the same to the Verifying Officer/ Manager concerned. Steps be taken within seven days."
4. Pursuant to the order dated 11.10.2021, an affidavit has been filed before the Trial Court, which has been annexed to the present petition as Annexure-H. It is evident therefrom that the directions contained in the order dated 11.10.2021 have not been fully complied with, inasmuch as the petitioner-plaintiff has not stated the steps taken before sanctioning the loan to verify the address of the respondent-defendant or the steps which have now been taken to locate the respondent-defendant.
5. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order dated 14.12.2021 in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is, however, open to the petitioner to approach the learned Trial Court for waiver or reduction in the amount of costs imposed, and for such other directions as may be required to complete service upon the respondent in accordance with law.
6. The petition is disposed of with these observations.
PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 20, 2022 „pv‟ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:21.01.2022 10:05:55 CM(M)70/2022 Page 3 of 3