vil Appeal No 1747 N of 1973
From the Judgment and Order dated 1661972 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No 54 of 1969
CS Vaidayanathan Pravir Choudhary KV Mohan HK Dutt and SR Bhat for the Appellant
GS Chatterjee for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHALID J
This is an appeal by special leave filed by the plaintiff bank against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court arising from suit No 547 of 1952 filed for recovery of a sum of Rs17091 0 1 with interest
The question in volved in this appeal is a short one but of general impor tance 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 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 the 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 1092 Smt
Kananbala Devi informed the Deshapriya Park Branch of the bank of the death of the defendant
The bank had several branches in Calcutta
One of the branches was the Royal Exchange Branch
It was this branch that instituted the suit in question
The applications for impleading the legal representa tives of the defendant and for setting aside abatement were made by a Chambers Summons on the 8th August 1968 about 8 years after the death of the defendant
The delay in making these applications was attempted to be explained with the plea that the Royal Exchange Branch of the bank had no knowledge of the death of the defendant till the Deshapriya Park Branch was informed of the death
The High Court re jected the applications holding that In our opinion it is no explanation to say that the Royal Exchange Branch of the plaintiff bank which had really instituted the suit could not andor did not have knowledge of the death of Ramesh Chandra Roy Choudhury
An intimation of the death of Ramesh Chandra Roy Choudhury to the bank in the Deshapriya Park Branch could not be treated as no intimation to the bank which happens to be the plaintiff in this suit
In our view no sufficient cause was shown in the petition for setting aside the abatement and the learned Judge was right in dismissing the said application
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed Hence this appeal
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it would be extremely dangerous for courts to impute knowledge of the death of a customer with all the branches of a bank solely on the strength of information given to a particular branch of the bank
It is submitted that in these days when banking business has expanded by leaps and bounds with branches spread over large areas it would not be possible for a particular branch to know the death of one of its customers if that branch had not been informed of the death
In the absence of highly technical modern methods or com puterised information to all the branches of their custom ers and their details no branch of a bank can be presumed to know whether a particular customer is alive or not unless that hank is given necessary information
The submission that all branches of a bank should be imputed with constructive knowledge of the death of a cus tomer simply because one of the branches had been informed of it would result in adverse consequences and would defeat actions by banks for recovery of dues 1093 and would work great loss to banks and would harm public interest
In this case it is not stated or proved that the Royal Exchange Branch had information earlier about the death of the defendant
To prove this we have two letters produced by the appellant 1 dated 3rd June 1968 and the other dated 17th June 1968
The two letters read as fol lows 10 OLD POST OFFICE ST CALCUTTA
Ms SN Sen  Co Dear Sir 3rd June 1968
United Bank of India Ltd vs Ramesh Chandra Roy Choudhury
As I have not yet been able to make contact with my client until now in spite of my at tempts on that behalf please do not mention the suit tomorrow but mention the suit some time next week
The suit was part heard about 9 or 10 years before and my client has not seen since then
I hope you will mention the suit next week on previous notice to me
Yours faithful ly sd KP Mustaphy
Ms SN Sen  Co Dear Sir 17th June 1968
Suit No 547 of 1952 United Bank of India Ltd V Ramesh Chandra Roy Choudhury Kindly note that when the above suit will be mentioned by you before his Lordship the Hon ble Mr Justice RM Dutt I will submit his Lordship that as the defendant died in 1960 the suit has abated and cannot be pro ceeded with
Yours faithful ly Sd KP Mustaphy
Both the letters are written by the counsel for the defend ant to 1094 the bank
It is evident from the first letter that even on 3rd June 1968 the counsel for the defendant did not know about the death of the defendant
It was only thereafter that he came to know of the same
This branch of law appears to be barren of authority
A question akin to this is reported in 1918 The Times Law Reports Volume XXXV page 142
The brief facts are as follows The plaintiffs  claim in the suit was on a cheque for a 100 dated February 5 1918 drawn by the defendant and made payable to the order of a Mrs N Try who endorsed it to the plaintiffs
The defendant obtained leave to defend
The bank had branch at Victoria street Westminster of which the manager was Mr Stephen Trott
Among their customers was Mrs Try
The bank had a branch at the Oxford street branch of the Bank and she asked the manager to cash it
The amount was paid
The manager had no notice that the cheque had been stopped
The cheque when presented by the Victoria street Branch to the Oxford street Branch was returned marked Ordered not to pay
The cheque was stopped by a letter from the defendant to the Oxford street Branch
That letter was undated
It was under these circumstances that the action was brought
The question was when the drawer of a cheque stops payment by a notice given only to that branch on which it is drawn and the payee afterwards endorses the cheque to anoth er branch of the same bank and the manager of that other branch advances money on the cheque in good faith and with out notice that the cheque had been stopped whether the bank is entitled to recover against the drawer in an action on the cheque
Here it was clear that the cheque was stopped on the Oxford street Branch and that there was no notice yet at the Victoria street Branch when the cheque was pre sented
it was held that the bank was the holder of the cheque and the fact that the branch at Oxford street had notice not to pay the cheque did not affect the bank and therefore the bank was entitled to relief
It was observed that there was a right to a separate notice of dishonour as between the different branches of a bank
Though this judgment is not on all fours with our case we seek some assistance from it for our purpose and that limited purpose is that notice to one branch of a bank is no notice to the other branches
That being so the fact that the Deshapriya Park Branch had knowledge of 1095 the death will not be sufficient to impute Royal Exchange Branch with constructive notice and reject the applications to set aside abatement and to condone delay
Of course the law under the present Civil Procedure Code obviates this difficulty to some extent under Order 22 Rule 10 A Under the rule when a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party he shall inform the Court about it whereupon the Court shall give notice of such death of the other party
However this provision not being absolutely mandatory and cast a duty only on the pleader we thought it necessary to answer the question of law involved in this appeal
For the foregoing reasons we hold that the High Court was in an error in rejecting the application to set aside abatement and to condone delay on the plea that notice to one branch will be notice to other branches
We set aside the judgment of the High Court and allow this appeal with no order as to costs As indicated above the matter will rest here and the bank will not be permitted to proceed against the defendant or his legal representa tives to realize the amount involved in the suit
The amount will be deemed to have been fully discharged
We have only decided the question of law for the benefit of the banks and general public
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The defendant had an overdraft account with a particular branch of the plaintiff bank in the city
A suit was insti tuted against him by that branch in 1952 for recovery of certain sums with interest
He died on 6th November 1960
The widow informed another branch of the bank of the death of her husband on 20th December 1960
The applications for impleading the legal representa tives of the defendant and for setting aside abatement were made in 1968 about 8 years after the death of the defend ant
The delay in making these applications 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
The High Court rejected the applications on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for setting aside abate ment
It held that an intimation of the death of the defend ant to the bank in the other branch could not be treated as no intimation to the branch which was the plaintiff in the suit
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court HELD The High Court was in error in rejecting the application to set aside abatement and to condone delay
1095C All branches of a bank could not be imputed with con structive knowledge of the death of a customer simply be cause one of the branches had been informed of it for notice to one branch of a bank is no notice to the other branches
1092H 1094H 1091 In the instant case it is not stated or proved that the branch which 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 1918 The Times Law Reports Vol
XXXV p 142 referred to
The provisions of 0 22 R 10 A of the Civil Procedure Code requiring 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 court is enjoined to give notice of such death to the other party casts a duty only on the pleader and is not absolutely mandatory
1095B