State Bank of India vs Plywood Palace and others

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The challenge herein is to the orders, dated 10.1.2006, as well as dated 16.3.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar. Vide the order, dated 10.1.2006, the petitioner''s evidence was ordered to be closed whereas vide subsequent order, the petitioner''s application for recall/review of the said previous order, was dismissed.

As the impugned orders reveal, the petitionerBank has filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 5.94 lacs against the respondents. The Bank wanted to examine Ashok Bhagat as one of its witnesses, however, due to his transfer to Jammu branch, he could not be produced and examined.

Though from the impugned orders, it is apparent that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the petitionerBank to produce the said Ashok Bhagat, who is none else than the bank''s own official, however, having regard to the undertaking given by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the interest of justice, last opportunity may be granted the Bank to produce the said Ashok Bhagat for which the respondents may be compensated with costs and also keeping in view the fact that no order prejudicial to the interest of the respondents is being passed and notice of motion, if issued, will unnecessarily delay the adjudication of the suit, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions :

(i) the learned trial Court shall give only one and the last opportunity to the petitionerBank to produce Ashok Bhagat as its witness who shall be produced on or before April 30, 2006;

(ii) if the Bank fails to examine the said witness as per direction (i) above, its evidence shall be deemed to be closed;

(iii) the aforementioned witness shall be allowed to be examined subject to payment of costs of Rs. 7,500/;

(iv) no other opportunity shall be granted to the petitionerbank;

(v) however, due to paucity of time, the Bank may be permitted to examine the said Ashok Bhagat after April 19, 2006 (but before April 30, 2006) and for that reason the proceedings fixed on April 19, 2006 may be deferred.

Copy of the order given dasti on payment of usual charges.