Punjabi Brothers Vs. Punjab National Bank - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- mansoor ahmad mir, j. 1. by the medium of this civil first appeal the appellants have assailed the order dated 16.06.2001 passed by learned additional district judge (bank cases), srinagar in a case titled m/s punjabi brothers u. punjab national bank on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.2. heard. it is profitable to give a resume of the minutes of the file the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal.3. it seems that the suit has been filed by the respondent/bank for recovery before this hon'ble high court which was transferred to 2nd additional district judge, srinagar vide order dated 16.04.1988 passed by hon'ble high court. the case has been diarised by the transferee court i.e., 2nd additional district judge, srinagar vide order dated 04.05.1988. the defendants caused appearance on 18th june, 1988 and they were directed to file written statement. the defendants chose to remain absent and,, accordingly, ex parte proceedings were drawn against them vide interim order dated 7.9.1988. the plaintiff/respondent examined witnesses in ex parte on 23.9.1988 and 13.10.1988. then the evidence was closed vide order dated 10.11.1988 and file was listed for ex parte arguments for 30.11.1988. the argument were heard vide order dated 21.12.1988 and the file was reserved for judgment on 31.12.1988. thereafter once again it has been adjourned on 31.12.1988 to 2nd february 1989. vide order dated 22.2.1989 the file has been transferred in terms of orders of hon'ble high court to district judge (bank cases), srinagar and the file came up before the district judge on 1st march 1989. then the court has passed ex parte judgment and decree vide order dated 23.4.1989.4. it appears that the appellant has come out of deep slumber after lapse often years and filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and judgment. the learned district judge (bank cases) has dismissed the said application vide impugned order.5. the appellants have averred in the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and judgment that notice was necessary and the district judge (bank cases) was legally bound to issue notice to the defendants after case was transferred by the 2nd additional district judge to the district judge (bank cases). that has not been done, thus the ex parte judgment and decree needs to be aside. and the learned counsel for the defendants was not able to further prosecute the case nor he was able to justify his claim in the circumstances given in the petition.6. the learned district judge (bank cases) has dismissed the application for the reasons that the ex parte proceedings were drawn much earlier by the court of 2nd additional district judge and the district judge (bank cases) was not supposed to issue notice to the defendants, because the defendants have chosen to remain absent before the court of 2nd additional district judge and the appellant/defendants have not moved an application for condonation of delay.7. considered. i deem it proper to return finding on the issues projected by the learned counsel for the parties and the reasons given by the learned district judge (bank cases).8. that defendants caused appearance before 2nd additional district judge as referred hereinabove and then have chosen to remain absent. then ex parte proceedings have been drawn against the defendants. the defendants have not cared to ascertain what has happened to their case right from 1988 till the date of presentation of the application, i.e., application under order 9 rule 13 of cpc presented on 20.12.1999.9. it seems that the defendants have come out of deep slumber after lapse of eleven years. the defendants have not explained their absence right from 1988 till filling of the application. even the defendants have not bothered to explain delay right from passing of exparte decree and judgment till filing of appeal in hand. while going through annexure-a2, it appears that the defendants/appellants have not also prayed for condonation of delay. it is profitable to reproduce the prayer clause of annexure-a2 herein below:-'it is, therefore, prayed that the application be accepted and the exparte judgment and decree passed on 23.05.1989 be set aside so as to meet ends of justice'.10. the court gets jurisdiction only after delay is condoned. but no such prayer has been made. thus only on this account the application merits dismissal.11. the procedure is aimed at to achieve speedy justice not to protract the proceedings. if the application will be allowed that will amount to encouraging the party who is negligent and more so there will be no end to the liss, which is against the concept of speedy justice.12. keeping in view the minutes of the trial court file titled punjab national bank v. punjabi brothers, file no. 53 numbri 161 (transfer), one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the defendants have allowed the plaintiff to go exparte against the defendants in the court of 2nd additional district judge and after lapse of at least 11 years have chosen to move the application in hand. the perusal of the application discloses that the petitioners/applicants have not caved out a cause not to speak of a sufficient cause.13. the learned district judge bank cases has passed well reasoned and speaking order.14. having glance of the above discussion, i am of the view that the impugned order is perfectly legal one and needs no interference. accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. the impugned order dated 16.06.2001 passed by learned additional district judge (bank cases), srinagar is upheld. file be send back.