LexUNITED BANK OF INDIA versus SMT. KANAN BALA DEVI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
" . A UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. SMT. KANAN BALA DEVI· & ORS. APRIL 21, 1987 B [V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXJI, Rules 4 and 10-A- >-- Abatement-Death of defendant-Notice given to one branch of plain- tiff bank-Delay in making applications for impleading legal represen- ,\ - c tatives and setting aside abatement-Whether notice to one branch of a bank notice to other branches. The defendant had an overdraft account with a particular branch r- of the. plaintiff bank in the city. A suit was instituted against him by that branch in 1952 for recovery of certain sums with interest. He died ou D 6th November 1960. The widow informed another branch of the bank of the death of her husband on 20th December, 1960. ·. The applications for irnpleadiog the legal representatives of the defendant and for setting aside abatement were made in 1968, aboot 8 E years after the death of the defendant. The delay in making these appli- cations was sought to be explained with the plea that the concerned ~ branch of the bank had no knowledge of the death of the defendant till it was informed by the other branch. - Tht High Court rejected the applications on the ground that no suffident .caose was shown for setting aside abatement. It held that an ~- F intimation or' th~ death of the defendant to the bank in the other branch could 'noi be treated as no intimation to the branch which was the y plaintiff in the snit. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, G HELD: The High Court was in error in rejecting the application to set aside abatement and to condone delay. [I095C] All branches of a bank could not be imputed with constructive 'r knowledge of the death of a customer simply because one of the branches had been informed of it, for notice to one branch of a bank is H no notice to the other branches. [I092H; I094H] !090 UNITED BANK v. KANAN BALA [KHALID ,J.l lll'Jl In the instant case, it is not stated or proved that the branch which A had filed the suit had information earlier about the death of the defendant. It is evident from the record that even on 3rd June, 1968 the counsel for the defendant did not know about the death of the defendant. The fact that a particular branch of the plaintiff bank had knowledge of the death was not sufficient to impute the concerned branch with constructive notice. [1093A; 1094A, H; 1095A] B (1918) The Times Law Reports, Vol. XXXV, p. 142 referred to. The provisions of O. 22, R. 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code re- quiring a pleader appearing for a party to the suit to inform the court when he comes to know of the death of that party, whereupon the conrt C is enjoined to give notice of such death to the other party, casts a duty only on the pleader and is not absolutely mandatory. [I09SB] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1747 (N) of 1973. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.1972 of the Calcutta • High Court in Appeal No. 54 of 1969. C.S. Vaidayanathan, Pravir Choudhary, K.V. Mohan, H.K. Dutt and S.R. Bhat for the Appellant. G .S. Chatterjee for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D E KHALID, J, This is an appeal by speical leave filed by the plain· tiff bank against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, arising F from suit no. 547 of 1952, filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,091-0-1 with interest. The question involved in this appeal is a short one, but of general importance to banks in the country. We have made it clear to the appellant bank that we are interested only in laying down the law in this appeal and not in giving a decree to the bank for this small amount, the claim for which originated nearly 35 years ago. The G learned counsel for the appellant bank has agreed to this suggestion. The defendant in the suit was one Ramesh Chandra Roy Choudhury. The plaintiff was thi; United Bank of India Ltd. The defendant had an over-draft account with the bank. He died on the 6th November, 1960. On the 20th Dec., 1960 the widow of the defendant, Ii 1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 2 S.C.R. A Smt. Kananbala Devi informed the Deshapriya Park Branch of the bank of the death of the defendant. The bank had several branches in r Calcutta. One of the branches was the Royal J;:xchange Branch. It was this branch that instituted the suit in question. B The applications for impleading the legal representatives of the defendant and for setting asid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.