Karnataka High Court
Abdulgafar Sab S/O Kilatisab Javali vs The Branch Manager, on 27 April, 2018
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1 W.P.NO.108573/17
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27 T H DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.108573 OF 2017 [GM-CPC]
BETWEEN:
ABDULGAFAR SAB, S/O. KILATISAB JAVALI,
@ ABDULGAPAR JAVALI, S/O.SHILARSAB,
AGE-84 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURIST,
R/O.MAKARI, TALUK-HIREKERUR,
NOW RESIDING AT GANESH NAGAR,
TQ-RANEBENNUR, DIST-HAVERI-581 115.
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VIDYASHANKAR DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.G.M.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
AXIS BANK,
P.B.ROAD, BRANCH-RANEBENNUR,
AT-RANEBENNUR, DIST-HAVERI.
.....RESPONDENT
2 W.P.NO.108573/17
(BY SRI.R.M.PHIRANGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2017 IN
L.A.C.NO.149 OF 2006 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL
JUDGE SR.DN AND J.M.F.C., HIREKERUR PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECT THE COURT BELOW TO ALLOW
APPLICATION DATED 04.07.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
IN L.A.C.NO.149 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
CIVIL JUDGE SR.DN. AND J.M.F.C., HIREKERUR PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-G AND IN ALTERNATIVELY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petition lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner a poor land looser who was awarded compensation by the SLAO in respect of the land acquired is before the Court justifiably complaining against learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, who has by the impugned order dated 04.07.2017 declined to issue a fresh cheque in lieu of earlier time barred cheque for the compensation amount of Rs.91,491/- which in the Court deposit. 3 W.P.NO.108573/17
2. The land acquiring body-beneficiary namely, the Executive Engineer, Upper Tunga Project, Rattihalli, had deposited in the Registry of the Court below the compensation in a sum of Rs.91,491/- vide C.C.D.No.432/2016-17 on 30/1/2017 in LAC No.149/2006.
3. The Court below on the application of the petitioner had made an order on 11.04.2017. The operative portion of which is as under:
"Appellant has made out grounds and hence office is directed to issue cheque in favour of applicant on proper identification."
Accordingly, the Registry of the Court below issued to the petitioner the cheque dated 05.06.2017 on 30.01.2017 for the said amount in favour of the petitioner.
4 W.P.NO.108573/17
4. The petitioner credited the said cheque for encashment with the respondent-Bank on 14.06.2017 and the said Bank did not honour the presentation stating that the collecting Bank had issued an endorsement on 30/06/2017 that the validity period of cheque had expired.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner moved another application under Section 151 of CPC on 04.07.2017 seeking issuance of fresh cheque or to issue another endorsement for validation. The Court below vide order dated 04.07.2017 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that cheque in question was valid as on the date when it was presented to the Bank and that the Bank had committed fault in not honouring the presentation.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned panel advocate for the 5 W.P.NO.108573/17 respondent. Both they consensually submit that the approach of the Court below is too legalistic and completely bereft of justice and fairness. The learned Judge ought to have either revalidated the cheque or issued a fresh cheque after canceling earlier chqeue. This course of action would have rendered justice to the petitioner and save a lot of precious time of the said Judge and of this court.
7. The counsel on either side are justified in submitting that the Courts in our judicial system are not only of law but of justice too which essential idea the learned Judge of the Court below appears to have forgotten. No prejudice would have been caused to any of the parties had a fresh cheque been issued or the earlier cheque been validated, regardless of the course of action the petitioner would take against the erring Bank. 6 W.P.NO.108573/17
8. The learned Judge was expected to know the age old maxim of profound wisdom that 'the act of Courts hurts none', "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit" reiterated by the Apex Court in the famous case of A.R.Antulay V/s. R.S.Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531.
9. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 4/07/2017; a writ of mandamus issues to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur to issue a fresh cheque comprising the compensation amount in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
10. The undertaking given by the respondent-Bank to honour the fresh cheque on its presentation at once is placed on record. 7 W.P.NO.108573/17
11. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to initiate appropriate action against the erring Bank, if he so chooses.
SD/-
JUDGE VB/VMB/-