Karnataka

Kolar

CC/27/2024

J.S.Jaganath - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

K.V.Shankarappa

18 Apr 2024

ORDER

ORDERS ON ADMISSION

 

Complainant counsel present.  Heard the arguments on admission perused the complaint and its supporting documents that is copy of judgment and decree passed in OS.No.341/2017.

 

It is the case of the complainant is that, the complainant father borrowed the loan amount from State Bank of Mysore by pledging title deeds of the house property.  When the father of the complainant failed to repay the loan amount that, the bank filed the suit bearing OS.No.121/2023 against the father of the complainant for the recovery of the amount and ultimately the said suit was decreed in favour of the Bank.

 

Further that the father of the complainant was died and the complainant settled the loan amount during the execution proceedings.  Whereas, the State Bank of Mysore amalgamated the State Bank of India and the complainant requested the Bank return of the original documents, when the Bank did not yield to the request of the complainant to return back to the documents and hence complainant filed the original suit bearing OS.No.341/2017 before the learned Civil Judge K.G.F against the Bank seeking the relief of return of the documents, ultimately said suit was came to be decree.  The complainant also filed execution petition before the learned Civil Judge K.G.F which is pending for consideration.  It is astonishing to note that, once again complainant filed the present complaint seeking the relief of returning of documents and compensation. 

 

The present complaint is not maintainable for the following reasons, firstly the complainant already got the relief from the Civil Court in respect of returning of documents and the execution petition is pending for consideration.  Hence the occasion is not

warranted to try the same issue again which is already attained finality.  Furthermore, the complainant in the civil suit ought to have sought for compensation also, now he cannot agitate the same thing due to bar under Order 2 Rule 2.

 

Secondly the complaint is also hit by law of limitation.  On careful perusal of the entire pleadings in the complaint, the complainant did not mentioned the date on which date he has closed the loan amount in order to ascertain the cause of action to bring the present complaint.  However, as per the saying of the complainant, he has filed the memo in execution No.40/2011and got closed the EP after settlement of the loan amount, it clearly demonstrates that, the cause of action accrued to the complainant during the year 2011, whereas the present complaint filed on 15/04/2024.  As per section 69 of the C.P. Act 2019 it reads thus “(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. 

 

In the light of section 19 though cause of action accrued to the complainant during the year 2011 but the present complaint is filed on 15/04/2024 and the same is brought before this Commission after lapse of nearly about 13 years, the law mandates that, Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action as arisen.  Further, law will not lend its hand, those whoever slept over their rights.

 

On foregoing reasons, acting under section 36(2) of the C.P.Act 2019 rejected the complaint.

 

 

 

                                                                                                  MEMBER     PRESIDENT