M. Jagannadha Rao, CJ.

( 1 )

( 2 ) THESE two appeals have been preferred TO by the plaintiff, the State Bank of India, against orders passed by the learned Single Judge returning the respective plaints in the two suits under Order 7, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for presentation before the Court at Gurgaon, observing that the Bank can seek exclusion of lime under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

( 3 ) AS the point arising in the two appeals (each of which arise out of a separate suit) is common, it is sufficient to take up the facts as they arise in FAO (OS) 39/95. That FAO arises out of Suit 1086/84. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 7,20,337. 39. (FAO (OS) 40/95 arises out of Suit 1087/84 and that is for recovery of Rs. 7,98,247. 37 ).

( 4 ) IN Suit 1086/84, the 1st defendant is Mr. Inder Raj Malik (Sole Proprietor of M/s Ruby which is engaged in wrist-watch business ). Mr. Sanjiv Malik s/o Mr. J. R. Malik, Mrs. Malik,and Mr. Anil Malik are the defendants 2 to 4, being son, wife, and son respectively of late Mr. J. R. Malik. The factory of the defendant is located at 6/9 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. From 1979, the State Bank of India was giving financial assistance under cash-credit fa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document