State Bank of India vs M/s Khadi Utpadan Kendra and Another

V.K. Jhanji, J.—The petitioner-band filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,08,507.58 P. When the suit was fixed for arguments, it came to the notice of Learned Counsel for the bank that the statement of account pertaining to an amount of Rs. 25.78987P was not exhibited, during the course of evidence, Therefore, an application was made for leading additional evidence so as to prove these documents. This application was rejected by the trial Court after finding that though, the statement of account was produced on record, but the same does not bear the requisite certificate as required under Bankers Book Evidence Act, and the Bank cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna by way of additional evidence. This order is being impugned by the Bank in this revision petition.

Mr. R.S. Mittal. Sr. Advocate, Learned Counsel for the respondents in order to justify the order passed by the trial court, made a pointed reference to Order 7, rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, and contended that these documents were not filed at the time when the plaint was presented. Even if, the said documents were on record, but in absence of requisite certificate, the same cannot be looked into for any purpose. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon AIR 1950 P.C. 68, to contend that once the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court under Order 7, rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, then this Court should not interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. He also placed reliance upon Keshardeo Chamria Vs. Radha Kissen Chamria and Others, ,for the proposition that even if the order is illegal the same cannot be interfered by this Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s 115, C.P.C.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I find no merit in the contention of Learned Counsel for the respondents.

The application which was filed for leading additional evidence, was dismissed not only on the ground that the Bank cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna, but also on the ground that if the suit had been filed on the basis of documents in question, the same would be barred by limitation". This reasoning of the trial court on the face of it is fallacious because the suit has been filed on the basis of documents, agreements, promissory notes etc., alleged to have been executed by the defendants with the Bank. The statement of account only shows that the amount due pertains to some account maintained by the defendants with the plaintiff-bank, It appears from the facts and circumstances of this case that these documents could not be exhibited because of inadvertent mistake on the part of counsel for the Bank. No doubt, this Court is always slow in interfering with the interlocutory orders while exercising jurisdiction u/s 115, Civil Procedure Code, but where it appears to the Court that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily by the trial court, then this Court can certainly interfere in revisional jurisdiction.

Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed, and the order of the trial Court is set aside. The plaintiff-bank is allowed to prove the disputed documents on payment of Rs. 2000/- as costs. The trial Court shall fix a date for the evidence of plaintiff in order to enable the plaintiff to prove the documents in question, and thereafter, one opportunity will also be given to the defendants for leading the evidence in rebuttal.