BANK OF INDIA versus LEKHIMONI DASS AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 216 · Decided: 10-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
LEKHIMONI DASS AND ORS. 
MARCH 10, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD ANDS, RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
Code of CiVil Procedure, 1908 : 
S.95, Order 21, Rules JOO and JOI-Injunction obtained against decree 
for possession for premises, on insufficient grounds-Remedy-Decree for 
possession of premises passed in favour of plaintiffs-Judgment-debtors and 
their pledgee filing applicaJions under Order 21, Rules JOO and JOI and 
obtaining injunction-Decree holder claiming compensation for loss suffered 
due to non-delivery of possession of premises on account of injunction orders 
obtained by judgment-debtors and their pledgee on insufficient grounds-
Decree holder also filing a separate suit for damages-Held, a regular suit for 
compensation is not barred by omission to proceed under summary procedure 
provided under s.95, but if such an application is made and disposed of such 
disposal would operate as a bar to regular suit-The manner in which the 
defendants obtained injunction and prevented decree-holders from utilising 
their premises, shows intention of defendants to deprive the plaintiffs of the 
possession-:-lnjunction is obtained on insufficient and improbable grounds-
Even the pledgee Bank cannot absolve itself of malice arising in the case. 
Practice and Procedure-Pleadings-Jn a case where the facts are writ 
large and the parties go to trial on the basis that the claim of the other side is 
clearly known to them; lack of pleadings would not prejudice them. 
The plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 77/59 filed the said suit against the 
heir of the original lessee of the godown and the sub-lessees. The suit was 
decreed against all the defendants including the sub-lessees. The plaintiffs 
then filed an execution case for possession of the godown. Since oil seeds 
were stacked in several bags in the said godo\vn, and the stack could not be 
removed immediately, the plaintiff obtained possession of the godown 
alongwith the oil seeds. The oil seeds were kept in the custody of one 'SR', 
· an employee of.the plaintiffs, by the court bailif. At this stage the appel-
lant-Bank of India filed an application under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC 
claiming to be in possession of the godown as pledgee of the goods from 
216 
'· 
-
,' 
BANK OF INDIA v. LEKHIMONI DAS 
217 
Mis. 'BB' a partnership firm consisting of the sub-lessees as its partners. 
The said partnership firm also filed another application under Order 
XXI, Rule 100 and 101 CPC claiming to be in possession of the godown on 
the date of delivery of possession. The defendants filed two separate 
applications restraining the decree holders from removing the stacks of oil 
seeds from the godown. On an application, the Bank was granted liberty to 
remove the goods., but it applied for modification of the order. A revision 
petition was filed in the High Court wherein the Bank withdrew the 
petition for removal of the goods. 
The plaintiffs claimed compensation for the loss suffered by th~m by 
way of rent as the defendants did not remove the· goods from the godown 
and obtained order of injunction wrongfully. The plaintiff also filed a 
separate suit for ascertaining the mesne profits, claiming damages for 
wrongfully keeping the goods in the godown. In this suit the Bank was 
impleaded as defendant No. 1 and the erstwhile sub-lessees were imp leaded 
A 
·B 
c 
as defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The Bank contested the suit claiming to be in 
D 
possession of the godown as pledgee. It denied to have any knowledge of 
the earlier suit or execution proceedings. The other defendants pleaded 
that the goods kept in the godown belonged to the firm; the Bank was the 
pledgee of those goods; they did not conduct the business; and they did not 
interfere with the execution of the decree. All the defendants contended 
that the injunction was not obtained illegally, and, therefore, they were not 
liable to pay any compensation or damages. The trial court dismissed the 
suit. The appellate court 1teld that the sub-tenants could not disown their 
liability for damages sustained by the plaintiffs on account of the storage 
of oil seeds belonging to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who pledged the same with 
defendant No. 1 as security for loans. The High Court, in second appeal, 
held that the oil seeds belonged to the partnership firm of which defendant 
Nos. 2 to 4 were partners, Defendant No. 1, the Bank,, as pledgee of the 
goods was in actual physical possession of the godown at the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.