1 The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is arising from an Order dated 3.3.2005 passed by the learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge, City Civil Court No.17, Ahmedabad, below Exhibit-9 in Summary Suit No. 2274 of 2003.
2 The present petitioner, being a Cooperative Bank, filed a Summary Suit against the present respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs. 8,72,642/- with running interest @ 18% per annum. Under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, taken out summons for judgments and prayed to decree the suit. In response to the summons for judgment, the present respondent filed an application for Leave to defend the suit proceedings and raised several contentions.
3 By Order dated 3.3.2005, the learned Chamber Judge, rejected the said Exhibit-9 Application and directed that the Summary Suit No. 2274 of 2003 be converted as a long cause suit and be notified for its trial in accordance with the provisions as per seniority of the suit. Being aggrieved with this order, the original plaintiff has challenged the same by way of the present petition.
4 Heard Mr.G.M.Joshi, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned Advocate for the respondent. I have also perused the impugned order. The main contention raised by the respondent-defendant is that the agreement with regard to the loan transaction was executed with the Branch of the petitioner Bank where the respondent-defendant was not working as an employee of the Bank. He has denied the transaction dated 30th April, 2003 and also denied to have kept the amount and thereby alleged to have committed the breach of contract. Having considered the defence, the learned City Civil Judge arrived at a conclusion that there are triable issues and, therefore, no decree can be passed without examining the witnesses.
I am in agreement with the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while dealing with the summary proceedings and reasons assigned for not decreeing the suit or granting permission to defend the suit without imposing any condition against the defendant.
6. However, I am of the opinion that the Summary Suit is pending before the Trial Court since 2003 and therefor it would be in the interest of the parties that hearing of the suit is expedited so that the same can be finally disposed of.
7 In view of this, the present petition is dismissed. However, th learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, is directed to proceed with the Summary Suit No.2274 of 2003 and decide the same as early as possible in accordance with law. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(A.J.
DESAI, J.) pnnair Top