Dismissed

Ruby Mushroom & Canning (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Canara Bank

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2011CR/5313/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision, the petitioner sought to set aside an order refusing to summon original documents held by the respondent bank. The High Court Found no requirement for specific procedural provisions since no permission for secondary evidence was sought, and the revision petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for permission to file typed copies of documents was granted, but the revision petition demanding production of papers was dismissed.

Ruby Mushroom & Canning (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 5313 of 2011 --1--

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 5313 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision. 16.09.2011

¶4

Ruby Mushroom and Canning(P) Ltd. .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Canara Bank

¶7

...... Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶9

Present: Mr.Bhal Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

¶12

CM No. 21860-CII of 2011

¶13

Application for permission to place on record Annexures P-21 to P-45 is allowed. The documents are taken on record.

¶14

CM No.21861-CII of 2011

¶15

The application for permission to file typed copies of documents annexed as Annexure P21 to P-44 is sought. The same is granted.

¶16

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

CR No.5313 of 2011

¶18

This is a revision petition brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant for setting aside the order dated 19.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh as also directing Canara Bank to produce the original documents held in their possession as listed in Annexure P-17 for proper

¶19

Civil Revision No. 5313 of 2011 --2--

¶20

adjudication of the counter claim of the petitioner.

¶21

The respondent had filed a suit for recovery against the petitioner and others. Claiming that the petitioner has become a sick unit on account of lack of help from the bank, which the bank was bound to extend, a counter claim had been filed by the petitioner. It is the case that the petitioner had placed on record several circulars and policies of the Reserve Bank of India, vide which sick units had to be helped by the Banks. According to him, the originals of those documents are with the plaintiff/respondent and the petitioner had requested the officials of the bank to produce those documents, but they have not produced the same. According to him, the grounds on which those documents have not been produced are flimsy. It has been averred that those documents have been introduced by the petitioner in its evidence but they have been marked by the trial court for want of original documents. The prayer was made before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh to ask the plaintiff to produce the documents listed in Annexure P-17, so that the marked documents could be compared with them.

¶22

I have heard Mr. Bhal Singh Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the facts mentioned above by way of his submissions before this court. According to him, the respondent bank has unreasonably withheld those documents under flimsy excuses. He has submitted that the only purpose of the petitioner for summoning the documents from the respondent-bank is comparison of the documents marked by the petitioner in its evidence with the originals.

¶24

Civil Revision No. 5313 of 2011 --3--

¶25

If the documents, as argued, were unreasonably withheld by the plaintiff, adverse inference can be taken by the court while deciding the suit. It is a case where the petitioner had taken a long time in leading its evidence and its evidence was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this court and this court granted two opportunities to the defendants to conclude their evidence and those two opportunities have been availed by the petitioner and other defendants and they themselves closed their evidence. In these circumstances, no further permission to lead evidence could be given to the defendants.

¶26

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no permission is sought by way of this revision petition for leading more evidence. If permission is not required for leading further evidence, then under which provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure those documents are required to be summoned has been the question asked from learned counsel for the petitioner which he failed to answer. No permission was ever sought to lead secondary evidence regarding contents of those original documents which were withheld by the respondents.

¶27

In these circumstances, I find no illegality in the order dated 19.07.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. The revision petition is consequently dismissed.

¶28

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶29

16.09.2011 dinesh

Ruby Mushroom & Canning (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruby Mushroom & Canning (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpreet Kaur Vs Dalbir Singh and Ors.

Hari Om Vs Ram Chand

Gurdeep Singh Vs Balbir Kaur etc.

Surjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Gurdev Kaur and Ors.

Dharam Pal Vs Rahul and Ors.

Ram Niwas Vs Rohtash and Anr.