Telangana High Court
CRP/3124/2019 of Indian Bank Vs Dr. N. Satya Dev and Another on 30 December 2019
Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3124 of 2019 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/defendants, challenging the order, dated 05.11.2019, passed in I.A.No.161 of 2019 in O.S.No.501 of 2012 by
THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.3 1 2 4 of 2 0 1 9
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/ defendants, challenging the order, dated 05.11.2019, passed in I.A.No.161 of 2019 in O.S.No.501 of 2012 by the XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby, the petition filed by the respondent No.1/ plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the subject suit in O.S.No.501 of 2012 for marking the Authorisation Letter issued in favour of the Chief Manager, was allowed.
2 . Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ defendants and perused the record. 3 .The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ defendants would contend that P.W.2 was recalled, pursuant to the re-opening of the evidence on the side of the plaintiff, to mark the Authorisation Letter. It amounts to filling of the lacunas in the suit. The Court below is unjustified in allowing the subject interlocutory application in I.A.No.161 of 2019 and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and dismiss the subject interlocutory application.
4 .Admittedly, the suit is filed by the Indian Bank for recovery of money. Due to oversight, the Authorisation Letter given to the Chief Manager of the Bank was not marked.
Substantial issues with regard to the receipt of loan etc., are required to be dealt with in the subject suit. The omission in not marking the said Authorisation Letter is not grave. Further, it would not amount to filling up the lacuna in the suit for recovery of money filed by a Bank. The submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioners/ defendants are unsustainable. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5 . In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this CRP, shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 30[th] December, 2019 Bvv