Kerala High Court
M/S. Vijaya Bank vs Vineeth Venugopal
Author: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/2ND PHALGUNA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2054 of 2016 (O)
---------------------------
I.A.NO.2368/2016 IN OS.NO. 325/2015 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM
----------------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
M/S. VIJAYA BANK,
KOTTAYAM BRANCH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
BY SRI.K.ANAND,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADVS. SMT.LATHA ANAND
SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON
SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL)
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. VINEETH VENUGOPAL,
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.C.VENUGOPAL,
MADAPPATTU HOUSE, VELOOR P.O, VELOOR KARA,
KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2. VENUGOPAL,
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,
MADAPPATTU HOUSE, VELOOR P.O,
VELOOR KARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
sts
OP(C).No. 2054 of 2016 (O)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO. 325/2015 IN THE COURT OF THE
PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE IA.NO. 2368/2016 IN OS.NO. 325/2015
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2016 IN IA.NO. 2368/2016 IN
OS.NO. 325/2015 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
--------------------------------------------------
O.P.(C) No. 2054 of 2016
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of February, 2017
J U D G M E N T
1.The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.325/2015 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. They approached this Court aggrieved by an order, refusing leave under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC.
2.The petitioner is a bank. In the suit, they produced statement of accounts for the period from July, 2007 till the date of filing the suit. This was in the format of Finacle software. However, the petitioner did not produce the statement of accounts for the period from August, 2004 till July 2007 for the reason that it was in the format of another software. Petitioner also did not produce statement of accounts prior to August, 2004 as it was manual. The petitioner sought to produce those statement of accounts with leave, which was declined. It is in this context, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
O.P.(C) No. 2054 of 2016
..2..
3.The petitioner explained the reason for non production in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, which reads as follows;
"4.That as per the ledger maintained by the plaintiff bank of the account of the defendant, the balance amount outstanding due from the defendant as on 13/05/2015 is Rs.75,591/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ninty One Only) which the defendants are liable to pay with interest at the rate 13.5% per annum with monthly rests. The statement of Account of the plaintiff Bank including that of the 1st defendant was kept in ledger book form till August 2004 and from August 2004 is the computer accounts in Brains software and from July 2007 in the Finacle software. In this case the account statement in the Finacle software from July 2007 has been produced along with plaint and marked as Exbt A21."
4.In view of the explanation as above, it can be discernible that non production was on account of the fact that it was kept in a different format. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no embargo in granting leave in such circumstances. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the application is allowed.
5.The original petition is disposed of, as above.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE bka/-