JUDGMENT
1. Heard counsel for the plaintiff and V. M. Sahai, counsel for the defendants.
2. By an order dated January 22, 1996, annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit, the defendant-bank was directed to renew the cash credit limit agreement of the plaintiff for one year more, the plaintiff was directed to render full and regular account of transactions of sale to the defendant-bank and also it is said in the impugned order that the defendant will operate the plaintiff's account in accordance with rules and that the plaintiff will make repayment to the defendant-bank in accordance with rules.
3. Thereafter, an application was made by the defendant-bank for recalling the order dated January 22, 1996, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with the directions as contained in the injunction order dated January 22, 1996, which was passed after hearing both the parties by the court.
4. Upon hearing counsel for the parties, the court passed the impugned orders dated November 13, 1996, setting aside the injunction order dated January 22, 1996.
5. From a perusal of the injunction order dated January 22, 1996, it is manifest that the plaintiff was entitled to take loan to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs under the cash credit limit allowed to him by the defendant-bank. The grievance of the bank was that the agreement about the cash credit limit expired in September, 1996, and that was not got renewed by the plaintiff thereafter. Also the objection of the bank was that in violation of the cash credit limit allowed by the bank, the plaintiff had taken loan to the limit of Rs. 6,30,000 (rupees six lakhs thirty thousand). Another objection by the defendant-bank was that the plaintiff failed to render the accounts of all the sale transactions. To ensure repayments, the defendant-bank called upon the plaintiff to keep the stock hypothecated with the bank, reserved, matching to the loan amount.
6. Upon hearing counsel for both the parties, the court below while passing the injunction order dated January 22, 1996, observed that the plaintiff entered into a business venture for the first time and that that year was a year of loss and, therefore, the plaintiff deserved one more opportunity. This is how the court passed the injunction order directing the defendant-bank to renew the cash credit limit for one year more and the plaintiff was directed at the same time to render the account of the sale transactions to the bank and to make repayment in accordance with rules.
7. The bank having pointed out that the plaintiff had taken loan in breach of the cash credit limit to the extent of rupees six lakhs and thirty thousand and that the plaintiff failed to render the accounts regularly prayed for setting aside the injunction order. The court accepted the contention of the bank that the plaintiff wanted to take benefit of cash credit limit in transgression of the cash credit limit agreement which expired in September, 1996, that the plaintiff failed to render the accounts, and that the plaintiff failed to keep the stock reserved matching the loan amount, as directed by the bank to ensure repayment, and thus the injunction order dated January 22, 1996, was set aside.
8. In such matters, the court should be slow to make interference. The bank authorities are the best judge as to what safety measure should be taken against the debtors having loan transactions with the bank to ensure full and timely repayment of the loan, which is public money. If the plaintiff wanted to avail of the cash credit limit, then it was the duty of the plaintiff to adhere to the conditions imposed by the bank and if there is any deviation on the part of the plaintiff, then the bank was fully justified to withdraw the benefit of cash credit limit. The court found that the plaintiff failed to adhere to the conditions imposed upon him and, therefore, the court was right to set aside the injunction order which could be done even in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of courts. For the reasons, the first appeal from order is dismissed in limine.