Skip to content


Gurbinder Singh and ors. Vs. Munshi Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 39 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1954P& H196
ActsBanking Companies Act, 1949 - Sections 45B; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 24
AppellantGurbinder Singh and ors.
RespondentMunshi Ram and ors.
Appellant Advocate K.L. Gosain, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.L. Puri, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a..........there was an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of the bank. on 13-6-1949 the bank transferred its rights to pritam singh, father of the plaintiffs. in the meanwhile on 3-8-1948 defendants nos. 2 to 4 transferred their equity of redemption in favour of munshi bam defendant no. 1.3. all the defendants raised the objection that the case was not triable by the court at tarn taran because one of the parties to the suit was a bank who was subsequently impleaded as a defendant and there are certain pleas which would affect the bank and have been held by the court below to be claim against the bank and therefore are exclusively triable by this court under section 45b of the banking companies act. i am therefore of the opinion that the learned subordinate judge rightly held.....
Judgment:

1.This is a plaintiff's appeal against an oder returning the plaint for presentation to the High Court.

2. The facts of the case are that on 28-3-1946 defendants Nos. 2 to 4 executed a promissory-note for Rs. 19,000/- and there was an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds In favour of the Bank. On 13-6-1949 the Bank transferred its rights to Pritam singh, father of the plaintiffs. In the meanwhile on 3-8-1948 defendants Nos. 2 to 4 transferred their equity of redemption in favour of Munshi Bam defendant No. 1.

3. All the defendants raised the objection that the case was not triable by the Court at Tarn Taran because one of the parties to the suit was a Bank who was subsequently impleaded as a defendant and there are certain pleas which would affect the Bank and have been held by the Court below to be claim against the Bank and therefore are exclusively triable by this Court under Section 45B of the Banking Companies Act. I am therefore of the opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge rightly held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit with regard to the Bank.

4. Mr. Gosain is not so particular about the Bank and rightly so but he is apprehensive in regard to the claim against the other defendants and the difficulty has arisen because the plaint has been returned and there is nothing pending in the Subordinate judge's Court which can be transferred under the Letters Patent or under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the claim against the Bank is exclusively triable by this Court the claim against others must also be tried by this Court. I would therefore dismiss this appeal but leave the parties to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //