Debdas Sarkar vs The State Bank Of India & Ors on 18 May, 2011

                         GA No. 3218 of 2009
                          CS No. 163 of 2005
                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                            ORIGINAL SIDE


                          DEBDAS SARKAR
                               Versus
                   THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
                                AND
                       INDRANIL CHAKRABORTY


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE

Date : 18th May, 2011.

Appearance:

Mrs. R. Roy, Adv.

Ms. R. Palit, Adv.

Mr. F. Ahmed, Adv.

..For the petitioner

Mr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Adv.

..For the Bank

The Court : The plaintiff seeks to delete the names of the bank

personnel defendants and sue them by their posts. In addition, the

plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint to incorporate certain subsequent

events.

The principal objection on behalf of the defendant bank is that

the nature and character of the suit is being sought to be changed.

The defendant bank says that a certificate has been issued by the

appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal and it is the certificate claim
2

which is sought to be set off by way of the additional claims that have

been attempted to be incorporated in the proposed amended plaint.

It does not appear that the nature and character of the suit has

been sought to be changed. Some additional claims may have been

made, but the mere making such additional claims would not

prejudice the defendants since the defendants would have a right to

deal with the same in the written statements or additional written

statements to be filed thereto. The other apprehension of the

defendant bank, that the amended plaint could be cited before the

officers under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial

Institutions Act, 1993, is unfounded. There is no interlocutory order

till date in support of the additional allegations proposed to be

incorporated in the plaint. The apprehension expressed on the part of

the decree-holder cannot be appreciated, particularly, since without

there being a specific interlocutory order interdicting the proceedings

before the officers authorised under the 1993 Act, there is no

impediment for such officers to carry on with the matters that may be

before them.

GA No.3218 of 2009 is allowed by permitting the amendments

as proposed to be carried out. This order is without prejudice to the

rights of the defendants, particularly, their right to contend before any
3

other authority that the mere incorporation of certain allegations in

the plaint would not amount to proceedings elsewhere being stultified.

There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the notice of

motion dated November 27, 2009. The amendment and the re-

verification should be completed within a period of four weeks after the

reopening of the Court following the summer vacation. Copies of the

amended plaint should be served on the defendants within ten weeks

from date and the defendants should file their written statements or

additional written statements, as the case may be, within six weeks

from the date of receipt of the amended plaint.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite

formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.)

kc.

A.R(C.R)