HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

Order No. : 07

Date : 19.02.2024     

Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum Suiri, in CC/99/2018 vide order No. 13 dated 17.02.2020 and Order No. 28 dated 13.05.2022 and Order No. 36 dated 31.03.2023 by which the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum was pleased to run the proceeding of CC/99/2018 ex-parte against the OP of said Complaint Case, UCO Bank Hatjanpur Bazar, Birbhum and directed the complainant of CC/99/2018 to file examination-in-chief (vide order No. 13 dated 17.02.2020 in CC/99/208) for non filing of written version by the OP of complaint case CC/99/2018, by rejecting OPs filed time prayer for filing written version and further determined vide order No. 28 dated 13.05.2022 in CC/99/2018 not to accept the written objection or written version by the OP in CC/99/2018 on the ground that the Ld. DCDRC had passed the order to run the proceeding of CC/99/2018 ex-parte against the Bank (UCO Bank Hatjanpur Branch) and determined vide Order No. 36 dated 31.03.2023 in CC/99/2018 to hear the argument of CC/99/2018 exparte after rejecting of UCO Bank’s prayer to vacate the exparte, order of hearing of CC/99/2018 passed by it, the OP the said CC/99/2018, UCO Bank, Hat Jonpur Bazar Branch has pressed this Revision Petition dated 08.05.2023, praying for setting aside the impugned order No. 13 dated 17.02.2020, Order No. 28 dated 13.05.2022, Order No. 36 dated 31.03.2023 by allowing it’s filed instant Revision Petition since the impugned orders are vague, cryptic, legally meritless and lacking cogency and for absence of assignment of reasons to justify those orders as the same were all result of non application of judicial mind and non-appreciation of  the paucity of time to prepare and file written version for want of paper.

Point for consideration

Now it is to be taken into consideration to determine as to whether the instant Revision Petition dated 08.05.2023, filed by the Revisionist/Petitioner i.e. the OP of CC/99/2018 UCO Bank Hatjanpur Branch, deserves to be entertained or not and it is to be determined on the contrary as to whether the impugned orders No. 13 dated 17.02.2020, 28 dated 13.05.2022 and Order No. 36 dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum in CC/99/2018 are legally sustainable and thereby legally correct to be acceptable and thus deserve non interference.

Decision with reasons

    On perusal of the available materials on record, complainant of (CC/99/2018) the contests of the orders sheets maintained in respect of the proceedings of CC/99/2018, it is forthcoming that CC/99/2018 was filed on 11/10/2018 before the Ld. DCDRC Birbhum by the respondent of this Revision Petition i.e. the complainant of CC/99/2018, Gadadhar Mondal and consequently the proceeding of CC/99/2018 deserves to be run as per scopes of the relevant provisions of the C.P. Act of 1986 and according to the scopes of Sec. 13 1 (a) of C.P. Act of 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986 dated 24.12.1986) the written version of this CC/99/2018 should have been filed by the OP/Revisionist of CC/99/2018 and RP/10/2023 i.e. UCO Bank Hatjan Bazar Branch, represented by the concerned Branch Manager of Hatjon Bazar Branch of UCO Bank, within a period of 30 days and 15 days time, that may be granted by the Ld. DCDRC on receipt of complaint and summons in CC/99/2018. On simple matemetical calculation, since, the OP of CC/99/2018 i.e. the concerned Branch of UCO Bank had taken steps on 25.06.2019 in CC/99/2018 for the first time as the order No. 07 dated 25.06.2019 unchallengedly exhibits. So, it must be legally presumed that either prior to 25.06.2019 or, on giving maximum latitude in it’s favour, OP of CC/99/2018 received summons with complaint of CC/99/2018 in 25.06.2019. Accordingly as per scopes of Sec. 13 (1) (a) of C.P. Act of 1986, the said OP of CC/99/2018 i.e. the concerned Hatjon Bazar Branch of UCO Bank must have to file Written version in CC/99/2018 as the OP of the said complaint case, by maximum 45 days staring from 25.06.2019.

    Here in this case in CC/9/2018, the sole OP of the said Complaint Case i.e. the sole Revisionist of this Revision Petition Hatzar Bazar Branch of UCO Bank had not submitted its written version in CC/99/2018 even on 17.02.2020 for the reasons best known to it and the reasons of unacceptable and inappreciable nature have been placed/argued by the OP/Revisionist to justify such delay and that appears to be too insignificant to be entertainable, having regard to the factual matrix lying in the backdrop.

On perusal of the materials on record, I do not find any justifcable reason to interfere with any of the 3 Orders Nos. 13 dated 17.02.2020, 28 dated 13.05.2022 and 36 dated 31.03.2023 assailed by the Revisionist/OP of RP/10/2023 (CC/99/2018) as the order No. 13 dated 17.02.2020 is cogent and legally sustainable and the other two orders, as mentioned above are legally rational and quite substantiating consequent legally passed order Nos. 13 dated 17.02.2020. All these 3 orders appears legally sustainable and deserve no interference and thus stands.

Hence, it is

                         ORDERED

    The instant Revision Petition filed by Revisionist/OP UCO Bank Hatjon Bazar, Birbhum fails and stands rejected. The impugned order No. 13 dated 17.02.2020, 28 dated 13.05.2022 and 36 dated 31.03.2023 stand affirmed.

    Let the LCR be returned to the concerned Ld. DCDRC to proceed further with the CC/99/2018 according to the relevant provision of C.P. Act of 1986.

    Let a copy of this order be furnished to the contesting parties of the Revision Petition, forthwith, free of cost as per scopes of the relevant provisions of the C.P. Act of 2019.