J.L. Builders and anr. Vs. Canara Bank - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- contempt of courts act, 1971 -- sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & high court of karnataka (contempt of court proceedings) rules, 1981, clause (v) of rule 5; [dr.k. bhakthavatsala, j] whether the consent of the advocate general is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? held, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the supreme court or the high court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the advocate general. the high court of karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under article 215 of the constitution of india and section 23 of the act, and all other powers enabling in that.....orderv. gopala gowda, j.1. in this revision petition the common order passed rejecting the application filed under order 16 rule 6, c.p.c. and allowing the application filed under order 18 rule 17-a, c.p.c. is challenged insofar as it relates to rejection of the application. in the rejected application the defendant has sought for a direction to the plaintiff bank to produce the ledger relating to the suit transaction. according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, a sum of rs. 3,25,000/ was paid by the petitioners and the loan account was closed but despite that suit is filed by the bank for recovery of the amount.2. i have perused the order under challenge. the trial court rejected the application holding that the provision mentioned in the applications not applicable and the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

1. In this revision petition the common order passed rejecting the application filed under Order 16 Rule 6, C.P.C. and allowing the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A, C.P.C. is challenged insofar as it relates to rejection of the application. In the rejected application the defendant has sought for a direction to the plaintiff Bank to produce the ledger relating to the suit transaction. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/ was paid by the petitioners and the loan account was closed but despite that suit is filed by the Bank for recovery of the amount.

2. I have perused the order under challenge. The Trial Court rejected the application holding that the provision mentioned in the applications not applicable and the applicant should have filed application under Order 12, Rule 8, C.P.C. That provision is not applicable. It is Order 11 Rule 14, C.P.C. that applies. The Court should not have rejected the application merely because a wrong provision is mentioned. What is important is the contents of the application and the prayer made therein.

3. Even though the Bank is not disputing the payment of Rs. 3,25,000/- and Banker's statement is produced, the specific case of the petitioners is that the loan amounts had been closed but the same is not reflected in the Banker's statement. In view of this categorical plea of the petitioners, the Bank should have produced the concerned ledger for perusal of the Court. Since the ledger is maintained by the Bank and not produced, the Court should have summoned the same to resolve the controversy. The ledger would have disclosed the true position of the transaction and the petitioners would have been contended with that. The rejection of the application is wholly on irrelevant and technical grounds. In the circumstances, the order rejecting the application is liable to be set aside.

4. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, the application filed under Order 16 Rule 6, C.P.C. is treated as the one under Order 11 Rule 14, C.P.C. and the same is allowed. The Bank is directed to produce the ledger relating to the suit transaction within four weeks.