Punjab National Bank vs Jagir Singh

R.L. Anand, J.—This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 20.12.1997 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Tarn Taran, who dismissed the execution application of the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called ''the Bank'') by observing that the same was not maintainable.

Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:-

The Bank filed suit No. 35 registered on 13.1.1989, for the recovery of Rs. 92,000/-against Jagir Singh and four others. That suit was decreed on 19.2.1990. The Bank filed execution application No. 38 of 1995. Warrant of attachment was issued against the judgment debtors. The sale warrant was received back by the execution court on 2.8.1997 with the report that the total amount of Rs. 2,02,444.00 has been deposited by the J.D. The learned counsel for J.D also showed some receipts to the executing court regarding the deposit of the amount. In these circumstances, the execution application was dismissed as fully satisfied by the executing court on 2.8.1997 and the file was consigned to the record room. The Bank did not challenge this order dated 2.8.1997. It again filed one more execution application No. 1 12 of 1997, which was dismissed by the executing court by stating as follows:-

"I have gone through the file as well as the original file attached with the execution application vide my order dt. 2.8.1997, the execution application was dismissed as fully satisfied. In these circumstances, I see no justification in proceeding with this execution application. So this execution is ordered to be consigned to the record room as the execution has already been dismissed as fully satisfied. Moreover, the proper course of the D. H. was to file revision/appeal against order dt. 2.8.1997 and not to file the present execution application."

Aggrieved by the orders dated 2.8.1997 and 20.12.1997, the present revision. Along with the revision, an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed pleading that the delay of 236 days in filing the revision be condoned because proper remedy could not be adopted by the Bank for lack of professional legal advice.

Is it so?, will be the point for adjudication formed.

Every judicial order passed by the Civil Court is either subject to appeal/revision or review. Legal remedy has already been provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, if the Bank or its lawyer does not want to adopt that remedy, the bank should thank its staff and cannot fire the guns on the shoulder of the civil court. When the Bank filed the execution and got the warrant of sale for a sum of Rs. 2,02,444.00, this amount was deposited by the J.D. A report was received in this regard in the executing court on 2.8.1997. The counsel for the decree holder was present at that time. He should be well vigilant whether any amount was still due to the Bank at that time or not. He could intimate this fact to the executing court. He has not done so and allowed the executing Court to pass the order dismissing the execution application as fully satisfied. The order dated 2.8.1997 has not been passed in the absence of the bank. If the Bank was not satisfied with this order, it could file a revision or appeal in the competent court of jurisdiction within limitation. It has not done so. The Bank adopted a device not known to the law by filing a subsequent execution application little realising that its earlier execution application has already been dismissed as fully satisfied. In these circumstances, the ancillary point would arise whether the delay of 236 days should be condoned in favour of the bank who at its command and power can engage legal skills for the protection of its right and the safe answer of this court would be in the negative. The Limitation Act has been introduced by the legislature with a purpose. Section 5 of course has to be interpreted liberally but it cannot be allowed to be interpreted liberally to such an extent that any. litigant can take it into his head that he can kill the fly with casualness at its command. No doubt, the Bank is a public institution. The money belongs to the public but who is responsible if the bank is not vigilant about its rights. The responsibility is of'' the lawyer engaged by the Bank or on the staff of the Bank who could give the instructions to the lawyer on 2.8.1997 that some outstanding amount is still due to the Bank against the J.D. No employee of the Bank appeared before the executing court on 2.8.1997 informing the counsel for the decree-holder that some amount is still due. It will not be proper, now, to condone the delay of 236 days.

Faced with this difficulty, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 2.8.1997 an employee of the, Bank was present and that the Bank did not lose any time in filing the second execution application which was filed on 6.8.199.7.

This submission of the counsel for the petitioner is not borne out from the record. A reading of the order dated, 6.8.1997 indicates that there was no employee of the bank present at the time when the execution application was taken up by the executing court in the presence of Shri. S.S. Sandhu. counsel for the decree holder. Even the affidavit of Mr. Sandhu is not on the record to show that an employee of the Bank was present or that the court was informed that some amount was still due to the Bank. In the absence of any affidavit of Mr. Sandhu, no weightage can be given to the submission raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The affidavit, which has been now relied upon, is a false document and cannot be acted upon for any purpose. It is a sheer waste paper only suitable to the employee who has given the affidavit. I should say it is an irresponsible affidavit against the record of this Court.

Counsel for the petitioner, then, relied upon Union of India v. Shiv Darshan Singh 1993(3) R.C.R. 599 and Union of India v. K.D. Krishan lal 1993(3) R.C.R. 668.

There is no dispute with the proposition of law. Both these judgments have relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in which a clear direction has been given to the. Subordinate, courts that while dealing with the cases of Government and Public institution/corporate bodies, the courts should always take not of the fact that the working goes on snail pace but in none of these citations, it has been ever laid down that the moment a banking institution or a Government or Corporate body comes with an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act after the expiry of any amount of period, such an application should be allowed for the advantage of such corporation/Govt. institution. Every case has to depend upon its own facts because sufficient cause for the purposes of section 5 of the Limitation Act is a question of fact, to this case, the bank and its employees are too clever and their conduct cannot be encouraged or swallowed by this court otherwise it will give a wrong signal to the employees of the bank that they can take the benefit of, section 5 of the Limitation Act after the expiry of any amount of time if some loss has been caused to the Institution. On account of the lapse of the employees of the Bank, why a J.D. should suffer, The Bank should correct its won house and should try to fix the responsibility how the loss has been caused to the Bank and the employees responsible for this, loss should be brought to the book, and I hope that the Bank will fix the responsibility in this case and try to recover the amount, if any, from the employees for any loss caused to the Bank.

In view of the above, the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act stands dismissed.