State Bank of India vs Balwinder Singh

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 08.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Karnal, whereby, suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff State Bank of India has been dismissed for not furnishing correct address of the respondent-defendant and also for not moving an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ''the CPC'') for effecting substituted service upon the respondent. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 2,97,273/- on account of Kisan Gold Credit Limit along with interest up to date. Notices sent to the respondent for 23.07.2012, 04.09.2012 and 19.10.2012 were not received back either served or otherwise. Notice to the respondent for 15.12.2012 could not be issued for want of copy of plaint and case was adjourned to 08.04.2013 for notice of the respondent and last opportunity was granted to furnish copy of plaint and correct address of the respondent. Notice issued to the respondent for 08.04.2013 was received back with the report that he was residing abroad and vide impugned order dated 08.04.2013, the suit of the petitioner has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Admittedly, the petitioner-plaintiff was required to furnish correct address of the respondent and in alternative, he had to move application for substituted service, but on the other hand, it has also to be seen that in this case, the petitioner is a govt. bank and the public money is involved. The trial Court has lost sight of the fact that by dismissing the suit for non-prosecution, the petitioner-bank would be remediless and huge public money would go to the drain and in this manner, the result would be helping the respondent impliedly. In a public concern, nobody has the personal liability and as such the trial Court should not have dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. Here it is pertinent to mention that the law and procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice. If the petitioner-bank could not furnish the correct address of the respondent for issuance of notice and failed to move the application for substituted service, in that case, the petitioner-bank cannot be non-suited. The approach of the trial Court is hyper-technical.

In view of above discussion and without notice to the other party, at this stage, in order to avoid delay and expenses, the impugned order dated 08.04.2013 is set aside. One effective opportunity is given to the petitioner-plaintiff to furnish correct address of the respondent-defendant or to move appropriate application for effecting service upon the respondent by way of substituted service. However, this will be subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Karnal. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on 25.10.2013 and thereafter afford an opportunity to the petitioner to do the needful for service of the respondent. Disposed of.