State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- order 7, rule 11: [k.l. manjunath & b.v.nagarathna,jj] statutory notice under section 125 of karnataka co-operative societies act, 1959 - suit for recovery of amount rejection of suit under order 7, rule 11 cpc for want of statutory notice -appealed against dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society held, a notice under section 125 of the co-operative societies act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the co-operative society touching its business. ex. p-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under section 125 of the act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. ex.p-11 is only an intimation to the registrar of co-operative societies as to the demand made by the appellant. trial judge is justified in rejecting.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j. 1. it is brought to the notice of the court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. 2. this civil revision petition filed under section 18 of the small causes courts act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the court of small causes, (scch 17) bangalore in small cause suit no. 3560/ 1998 on its file.3. the trial court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one siddar murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the state bank of saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '386195',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '386195',
		(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs Siddar Murthy and anr - Citation 386195 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '386195',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - Order 7,  Rule 11: [K.L. Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Suit for recovery of amount  Rejection of suit under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for want of statutory notice -Appealed against Dispute is with regard to touching the business of the respondent society  Held,  A notice under Section 125 of the Co-operative Societies Act is mandatory before instituting a suit against the Co-operative Society touching its business. Ex. P-11 cannot be considered as the statutory notice under Section 125 of the Act issued to the respondent society before instituting the suit. Ex.P-11 is only an intimation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as to the demand made by the appellant.  Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Even the document produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not satisfy the requirement of law, there is no necessity to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of  CPC and remand the matter to the Trial Court to give its finding on the additional documents. 

Order 7, Rule 11 (A): [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Rejection of Plaint - Order passed by  Family Court - Decree of divorce by mutual consent and Childs custody in terms of the compromise - Difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -Separate application by the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for custody of the child - Petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the Respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the Apex Court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- Application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006.  Petitioners objections - At the stage of evidence of respondent, petitioners application under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. to reject the application filed by the Respondent under Section 26 Held, There can be no dispute that all orders relating to the custody of minor children from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstance and that with changed conditions and circumstances, including passage of time, the court is entitled to vary such orders, if such variation is considered to be in the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor. Indisputably, the object of Order 7, Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. The question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11(a). If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. Suffice it to state that the Family Court having considered the pleading in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 26 of the Act, did not conclude that the cause of action was either illusory or meritless nor vexations, but that there was a need to inquire into the truth of the allegations. The proceeding before the Family Court had reached the stage of recording the evidence of ex-husband over the assertions and allegations. The petitioner having founded the cause of action on the basis of  several averments set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Family Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioners application by the order impugned.  -  In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. </p><p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. </p><p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.</p><p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.</p><p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.</p><p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.</p><p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.</p><p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.</p><p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.</p><p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.</p><p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.</p><p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.</p><p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Siddar Murthy and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Banking;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '386195',
	(int) 1 => 'state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/386195/state-bank-saurashtra-vs-siddar-murthy'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before this Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The brief facts leading to the above revision petition are that the 1st defendant was a customer of the plaintiff Bank and it appears he has deposited a cheque for collection with them which was drawn on a foreign Bank. The plaintiff Bank having no direct arrangements with the said foreign Bank had in turn deposited the cheque with the 2nd defendant Bank at its Gokul Branch, Bangalore and the said 2nd defendant in turn had forwarded the cheque for collection and realisation to its Head Office at Bombay. It appears that the process of collection and realisation took time. Further it appears as per the normal Bank practice, the 2nd defendant Bank had credited an equivalent amount of the proceeds of the cheque, even before ihe realisation of the cheque and advice by its Head Office, to the account of the plaintiff Bank who in turn had paid it to the 1st defendant customer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After considerable lapse of time it appears that the Bombay Officer of the 2nd defendant Bank in formed their Branch at Gokul, Bangalore that the cheque had been returned unpaid and as such they reversed entries and debited the 2nd defendant's Bank account with them, who in turn made a debit entry in the plaintiff Bank's account with them.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. In the meanwhile, as the 1st defendant who was the customer of the plaintiff Bank had drawn the proceeds, and was not traceable by the plaintiff Bank, they in turn could not take steps to recover the amount and was left high and dry. In such circumstances the plaintiff Bank sued the 1st defendant customer and the 2nd defendant Bank for realisation of the amount which had been paid over to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was also impleaded on the premise that it was due to their delayed process in advising the non-realization of the cheque that the amount had already been paid and could not be recovered by the plaintiff Bank.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Suit summons had been issued to the defendants and the 1st defendant remained ex pane. The 2nd defendant Bank who has presented the above revision petition entered appearance through its Counsel and contested the suit claim.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. However, the learned Small Causes Judge found on merits that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for in the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. Strangely enough, the Trial Judge has observed that 'the claim made against the first defendant by the plaintiff cannot be sustained in the light of the aforesaid discussion'. In this view of the matter the suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and it was dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order that the 2nd defendant Bank is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Chandrasckaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the observation made by the Trial Judge was uncalled for and actually there is absolutely no discussion as to why the suit cannot be decreed as against the 1st defendant. On the other hand the learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that 1st defendant had remained absent and demonstrated that no evidence has been let in on behalf of the 1st defendant to dismiss the suit claim as against him. In such circumstances dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is certainly not in accordance with the legal provisions and not based on any material or even without any plea for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant is definitely a material irregularity. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context is that not decreeing the suit as against the 1st defendant will result injustice and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the person who is involved in the entire transaction and if at all he only has to satisfy the suit claim. The 1st defendant had not even tendered any evidence to dispute the suit claim. In such circumstances if the suit is decreed only as against the 2nd defendant-petitioner and not a joint decree as against both the defendants, the learned Counsel submits that the possibility of the 2nd defendant-petitioner, who had not made any gain of the amount in dispute, to recover or get reimbursement of the amount from the 1 st defendant who was the person who should have satisfied the suit claim will be foreclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that a joint decree was fully justified.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and submits that when once the 1 st defendant was absent and set out as exparte the Court was under an obligation to pronounce judgment against him even at the stage when the suit was being disposed of and the Court was duty-bound to pronounce judgment as against the 1st defendant also and while so doing the learned trial Judge had proceeded on a wrong premise dismissing the suit on a non-existent ground though there was no such discussion regarding dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge besides has observed that in the light of my discussion earlier the suit has to be dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Mr. S.N. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-Bank submits that the suit in fact should be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants and that the plaintiff Bank has no objection for so decreeing the suit as contemplated in law.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed to the extent modifying the order and decree passed by the Trial Court by ordering that the suit be decreed jointly and severally as against both the defendants in place of the decree of the suit only as against the 2nd defendant.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Banking;Civil
Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Sep-28-2001
Case Number	Civil Revn. Petn. No. 113 of 2001
Judge	D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
Reported in	[2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292
Acts	Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 8, Rule 11; Small Causes Courts Act - Sections 18
Appellant	State Bank of Saurashtra
Respondent	Siddar Murthy and anr.
Appellant Advocate	R. Chandrasekaran, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	S.N. Keshava Murthy, Adv.

State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr. - Court Judgment