-.L^,-i;!!,yT!''' ?—S ^^^^-^-^•^••''.^^•.•.^s'.-^-^r-J^^ \^> IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BICASPUR First Appeal No. 7'^'. of 2009 ^(/ c'l''^~1' APPELLANT PLAINTIFF ^^ .-(••^^- ^' ^'" ^i^'"' .'•!.v^ ^iv' w6^" -^\^ State Bank of India Through : The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Service Branch, Raipur (Incorporated under SBI Act 1955) Having its control office at Mumbai and inter alia Branch office at Byron Bazar, SBI, Zonal Office premises, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS IDBI/IDBI Bank Ltd. Through : Branch Manager, infront of Curu Ghasidas Museum, Raj Bhawan Road, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) IDBI/IDBI Ltd. Patna Branch, Kashi Palace Complex, New Dak Bangla Road, Infront of Heera Palace, Patna, (Bihar), 800 001. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, S/o. Shri Suresh Sharma, R/o C/o Upendra Prasad, DTS Telecom, Saib Par, Bhikhanapaha, Patna (Bihar) •FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FiRST APPEAL N0.176 OR 2009 APPELLANT PLAINTIFF State Bank of india IDBI/tDB! Bank Ltd. and others. FIRS.TAPPEAL UNDERSECTIQN 96 OF TH! COD! .OF CiVIL PROCEDL" Dsvision Bench: _ Hon'bie Shri I.M. Quddusj & "on'bie Shr! N.K. Aaar'A'ai, JJ. Present: Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counsei for the pialntiff/appeliant. Shr' Adll M'.nhs^, counsoi for th^ diaf$ndsnts/f9SDcnd<9p.ts, ^paSSgri nn gg'" riay QT .jljiy^ 2ft'lC') PerJ.ivl. QyaaLESs, J. Meard. 2. T nis appeai. is fiied againsi the impugnea order dated 17-08-2008 Osssed bv tne XI Additionai Distnct Judcie,.Raiour nolding that ths suit canno! be procseded with againsi defendants No. 1 & 2 which amounts to rejsction of piaint in respect of defendants No. 1 & 2. 3. Ths reason has been given by the learned Additional Distnct Judge to t?ie effsct that Hon'bie the Apex Court has heid that the Pubiic Sector Undertakings of Centrai Govemment and the Union of India shouict not fight their litigatl.ons in Court by spenaing money on fees of counsei, court fees, proceaurai expenses and wastlng public time. Courts are maintainsd for aoproDriate liticiations. Court's tims is not to be consumed by liSgations which are carried on either side at pubiic exsenses from the source and as such disDUfe shouid be rgferred to Hiah Power Committee for decision firet. 4- In ihe above regerd, first of ail, the directlons coniained in paras 3 & 4 of the jydfiment of Hon'ole Aoex Court in the case of Off anct NaturaS Gas Commlssion and anotfser vs. Coliector of Centrai scc/se; reported in 1S9S Supp {4} SCC 541, are ressvant which are reDroduced as under: •H!BS:Hi>;a!Bi'IBSiSasre>8S<"B'!WSSSgaSS8SBe8BSW BlilS'IS!8SSS2E'i""'SS%®ffi:~'K;?wi??WSS';^^ 2 "3. We dlrect that She Government of India shatl set up a Committee consisting of representatlves from the Ministry of industry, the Bureau of Pubijc Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of india, Ministry and Dublic sector undsrtakinas of the Government of india and public sector undertakings in ber»veen .themselves, to ensure that no iitlsanon comes to Court or to a Tribunal without the matter havina osen nrst examined by the Committee and its ciearance for litiaation. Government may include a reD.resentative of the Ministrv concerned in a specific case and one from t'ne Minisiry of Finance in the Committee. Senior officers only shouid be nominated so that the Comrnittee would function wjth status, controi and discipiine. 4. lt shal! be the obiigaflon of every Court and ever^ Tribuna! where such a disoute Is raised hereafter to demand .a ciearance from the CommitSee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of tne clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded With. 5. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to give brief facts of the case. Defendant No,3 San.jay Kumar Sharma produced 10 dividend warrants whtch were shown to be issued by.the SBI Mutual Fund, Eyiumbai, each of the dividend warrant valued Rs.24,600/-, before the piaintiff for coliection through responden&defendant No.1 i.e. iDE Sank Limited, Raipur (C.G.) on 14-07-2005. Since the same were produced by the defendant/Bank, the plalntiff made payment of the same. Thereafier, the same was sent by the plaintiff to SBI iViutuai Fund, Murnbai for getting the amount equivalent to the value of the same but the SBi Mutual Fund, Mumbai informed the ptaintiff/Bank on 12-08-2005 that those all the ten dividend warrants v/ere fate and no payment should be made against those warrants. Rest of the facts are not necsssary to mention except ths Diaintifr fiied a civii suit for recovery of the amount in which besides the. ~^:i:^^^~ ^^'."ay^^^^^sK.s ^' KS'; defendant No.3 Sanjay Kumar Sharma, IDBI Limited, Civil Lines. Raipur and IDBI Limited, Patna, Bihar were also made defendants as defendant No. 1 & 2 respectiveiy. 7. On the preliminary objections of the defendants No. 1 & 2, the impugned order has been passed against which tlie instant appeai has been filed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for fhe respondents/defendants raised the objection that the impugned order cannot be termed as decree. Therefore, the flrst appea! would not be maintainable. 9. In the above regard, it is necessary to peruse the definition of the decree given in sub section (2) of Section 2 of the Code of Civii Procedure,1908 which is auoted as under: "2 (1) xxx xxx xxxx XXXX (2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adiudication which, so far as regards the Court exDressina it, conclusivety determines the riahts of the parties with regard to ail or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preiiminary or final. !t shali be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not inciude- (a) any adjudication from which an appeai lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for defaurt. ExpSanation:- A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taten before the suit can be compietely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication comptetely disposes of the suit. tt may be partiy preliminary and partty final." 10. In so far as the rejection of plaint in respect of defendants No. 1 & 2 . it comes within the ^efinition of dscree and as such the impugned order is a decree and, therefore, in our view the instant first appea! js maintainable againstthe decree. 11. In respect of the findsngs given by the tearned Additionai District Judae while rejecting the piaint in resDect of defsnciants No. 1 & 2, the '"'^w'SSS^SSSSSS^^JS'Wi^fflVi-sss^-w.,. t. r^ Kvr matter should have been referred to the High Power Committee, it is to be noticed that the matfer in question i.e. ths Civil Suit for recovery of amount was not only against the defendants No. 1 & 2 but the same was also against defendant No.3 and the dispute was not purely related to Union of India and undertakinas. The suit fiied bv the plainnff was for recovery of Rs.3,21,046/- jointly or severatly and also interest @ 16.25% per annum. As such the directions of the Hon'ble the Apex Court as guoted wou!d not be aoDticabie in the suit in question which Is not a dispute purely between t\m undertakings. 12. in view of the above, the impugned decree rejecting the plaint aaainst the defendants No. 1 & 2 is iiable to be set aside. 13. In the resu!t, the appeal is aiiowed with costs. The impugned decree is set aside. Parties ars directed to appear before the triai Court on the date fixed by it. The tria! Court shaii restore the suit in respect of defendants No. 1 & 2 and atso proceed in accordance with law. - Sd/- I.M.Quddussi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge