Sushma Nanda & Ors. v. Axis Bank Limited & Ors.

1. Pursuant to the last order, there is appearance from the side of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Petitioners herein are plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and have filed a suit for damages, declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The above said suit was taken up during summer vacation on 18.06.2024 and as an ad interim measure, defendant No. 1-Bank was directed to defreeze the LLP Firm account forthwith. It was also directed to ensure that no transaction above 50% of the amount lying in such account be permitted to the plaintiffs. It was also clarified that plaintiff no.2 (party to the first LLP agreement) shall be allowed to operate such account qua his 50% CM(M) 3545/2024 2 share as per first LLP agreement, only to pay off the legally arising debts.

4. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 05.07.2024 by the learned Trial Court.

5. Admittedly, by that day, there was no compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and, therefore, the order was vacated.

6. However, according to learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, there are two different orders of same date. One order, which runs into three pages, is a detailed order and indicates, specifically, that the interim order dated 18.06.2024 has been vacated. The other order of same date, which is a one page order, and which was, reportedly, uploaded on the website of the Delhi District Courts simply records that the interim order is kept in abeyance for non-compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.

7. Though, the import of both the orders may be one and the same but fact remains that the grievance of the petitioner herein is that the order which had been uploaded on the website is different from what was actually reported to have been signed and is available in the judicial file.

8. Fact remains that thereafter when the above said anomaly was brought to the knowledge of the learned Trial Court, when seized with an application seeking review/recall of the said order, learned Trial Court went on to observe that wrong/incomplete order had been uploaded and that it was not the order which had been passed that day by him or for that matter which was on record.

9. Learned Trial Court also, simultaneously, directed the concerned official to be careful in future. It also appears that due to some personal reasons, the learned Trial Court Judge recused from the matter and now the matter is pending adjudication before Mr. Sachin Mittal, learned DJ- CM(M) 3545/2024 3 3/South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also does admit that the compliance was not made within the stipulated period and the affidavit of the compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC was submitted only on 06.07.2024.

11. The next date before the said Court is 21.11.2024.

12. After hearing arguments and with the consent of both sides, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the learned Trial Court shall take up the application moved by the petitioner herein under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 for consideration on 15.10.2024 and learned Trial Court shall consider the same afresh without getting influenced, either way, by any of the observation appearing in the present order and by the above said two orders passed on 05.07.2024.

13. It is expected that both the sides would render their due cooperation in this regard to the learned Trial Court so that the above said application is taken up on the next date and is disposed of by the learned Trial Court as expeditiously as possible.

14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

JUDGE OCTOBER 8, 2024