Gujarat High Court
Veraval vs Coop on 11 August, 2006
SCA/25994/2006 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25994 of 2006 ========================================================= VERAVAL MERCANTILE COOP.BANK LTD. - Petitioner(s) Versus COOP BANK OF AHMEDABAD LTD. THRO'BRANCH MANAGER. & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RAVINDRA SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,MRS KANAN R SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3,2.2.4 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA Date : 14/12/2006 ORAL ORDER
1. Veraval Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd., petitioner-original plaintiff, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 11.8.2006 passed below Exh.22 in Summary Suit No.2564 of 2002 and consequently be pleased to allow the said application at Exh.22 as prayed for. The petition is filed on 13.12.2006.
2. Heard Mr.Ravindra Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a Co-operative Bank having its customers spread across the State, whereas Co-op. Bank of Ahmedabad Limited ¿ respondent bank (now known as Cosmos Coop. Bank Ltd., Pune) having its customers spread across the State as well as in the State of Maharashtra and having its branch office at Mandvi, Mumbai. In view of this, there was some commercial transaction between two banks and therefore there was some dispute and difference arose in connection with the wrong deposits of cheque by some party and giving wrong credit by the respondent bank.
4. In view of the same, somewhere in July 2002, the petitioner bank filed Summary Suit No.2564 of 2002 against respondent No.1 Bank and the account holder Mr.Ajay S.Shah, Proprietor of M/s.Tulsi Investment believing that the reasons given by the respondent bank are neither correct nor legal. At that time in bonafide belief the plaintiff did not implead respondents No.2(a) to (e) as party defendants. Thereafter the petitioner bank somewhere in February 2005 filed an application at Exh.22 under Order 6 Rule 17, Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend the plaint and implead the respondents No.2(a) to (e) as party defendants. The respondent filed reply and ultimately the learned Judge rejected the application by his judgment and order dated 11.8.2006.
5. Mr.Ravindra Shah, learned advocate has stated that the aforesaid order of the learned Judge is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K.Modi and others reported in AIR 2006 S.C. 1647. The learned advocate further submitted that the aforesaid order is also contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of General Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. SRM Industries and others reported in 1992(2) GLH 459.
6. Hence, Notice returnable on 26th December, 2006. It will be open for the petitioner to serve the respondents by Additional Speed Post at his own costs.
( K.M. MEHTA, J. ) syed/