IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 48/2018 BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA MALLESHWARAM BRANCH NO.143, 8TH CROSS, MARGOOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER 2. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE (R.A.C.P.C.) NO.3/1, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004 NOW AT, NO.143, 8TH CROSS MARGOOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER 3. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE (R.A.C.P.C.) NO.3/1, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGLAURU-560004 NOW AT NO. 143, 8TH CROSS, MARGOOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. BHASKAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI DEEPAK BOLA SHENOY S/O. MADHAV RAO BOLA AGED 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.66 6TH FLOOR, ABHIJIT APARTMENTS 11TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003 REPRESENTED BY HIS G.P.A. HOLDER MADHAV RAO BOLA AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.66, 6TH FLOOR ABHIJIT APARTMENTS 11TH CROSS 7TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003. ... RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO AFTER NOTICE TO RESPONDENT, REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT ON 03.10.2017 IN W.P.NO.11836/2016 (GM-RES).
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners – Bank, which is called upon to take appropriate steps to return to the respondent the documents in terms of the order dated 03.10.2017, has filed this review petition seeking review of the order dated 03.10.2017 in W.P.No.11836/2016.
2. The petitioners – Bank has contended that the respondent suppressed the fact that he had approached the Banking Ombudsman for reddressal of his grievance of not returning of the original documents by the petitioners – Bank on the ground that these original documents deposited by the respondent were lost while in the petitioners – bank’s custody. The Banking Ombudsman, by its order dated 18.04.2016 issued specific direction to the petitioners – Bank to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation. The petitioners – Bank was under the bonafide belief that the petitioners because of orders of the Banking Ombudsman would withdraw the petition and as such, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners – Bank when writ petition No.11836/2016 was disposed of with direction as noticed. The petitioners – Bank impugned the order dated 03.10.2017 in Writ Appeal No.49/2018. This Writ Appeal is disposed of with liberty to seek review of the order dated 03.10.2017.
3. While the learned counsel for the petitioners- Bank reiterates the averments stated in the petition in support of the review prayer, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that no review is called for the following reasons. The petitioners – Bank though served with the petition, did not choose to appear and therefore, by this conduct the petitioners-Bank has brought upon the order dated 03.10.2017. The petitioners – Bank in support of the prayer for review has not placed any new material. There is no apparent error in the impugned order.
4. But, the learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that neither in the petition nor in the oral submission, it was brought to the notice of this Court that there was an intervening order by the Banking Ombudsman, which requires the petitioners-Bank to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- and to take certain measures to construct lost documents.
5. In view of the undisputed fact that the respondent neither pleaded nor brought to the notice of this Court, the intervening Banking Ombudsman’s order on similar question/grievances, that is, loss of original documents while in the custody of the petitioners – Bank, and that if this intervening Banking Ombudsman’s order was placed on record, the question for considerations perhaps could have been whether the respondent was entitled for similar direction in the writ petition despite orders of the Banking Ombudsman’s order. The failure to place intervening Banking Ombudsman’s order has, in the considered opinion of this Court, resulted in order granting relief already considered and granted by the Banking Ombudsman. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and reasonable to recall the order dated 03.10.2017 and take the writ petition on the Board of this Court for fresh consideration.
Ordered accordingly.
KA/-
SD/- JUDGE