The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the survival of the cause of action, which ultimately led to the disposal of the suit.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) IA No. 7303/2004 (u/section 151 CPC) this application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking restoration of the suit which was dismissed on 26. 04. 2004 in view of the order of the Division bench passed on 12. 11. 2003 in FAO (OS) 290/98. In terms of the order dated 16. 09. 2004 of the Division Bench in RFA (OS) No. 13/2004 the plaintiff has been permitted to re-agitate the issue in view of the fact that the plaintiff was not represented when the order dated 26. 04. 2004 has been passed. On 17. 11. 2005, and again on 02. 02. 2006, when this application was listed a plea was raised by learned counsel for the defendants that the restoration of the suit would be a fruitless exercise since no cause of action survives in the present suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff was thus put to notice that this court would examine both the issues of restoration and the survival of cause of action, if any.

( 2 ) IT is in view thereof that arguments have been heard on both the aspects today.

( 3 ) IN view of the averments made in the application, I consider it appropriate to allow the application and restore the suit. CS (OS)2805/1996". The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,98,24,219. 12 against the defendants consisting of the principal amount of Rs 4. 8 crores and the balance of interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. The plaintiff has also claimed pendente lite and future interest at 24 per cent per annum till realization. 2. In order to appreciate the cause for filing of the suit, it would be necessary to set out the prior transactions between the parties. ISRO had entered into an agreement with defendant no. 1 for supply of space technology and the payments used to be made by ISRO to defendant no. 1 through the plaintiff- bank by process of crediting the account of defendant no. 1 with defendant no. 3 and the transactions used to be governed by rupee-rouble trade. Defendant no. 3 in turn used to credit the account of defendant no. 1. The present suit arises in respect of one of the contracts out of a number of them for supply of such technology and in respect of one particular instalment. This instalment is stated to be a milestone payment as it was payable on occurrence of a particular event. 3. In December, 1991 on account of the break-up of USSR, the Reserve Bank of India issued instructions suspending the rupee-rouble trade. In terms of the directions issued by Reserve Bank of India, plaintiff had to make payment on behalf of ISRO through defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 in convertible currency. Despite these instructions of Reserve Bank of India the payment in question was made to defendant no. 3 for the credit of defendant no. 1 This transaction was repudiated by the Reserve Bank of India on 07. 04. 1993 and the plaintiff was directed to make payment through defendant no. 2 in convertible currency. The money was thereafter routed accordingly. "

( 4 ) THE present suit came to be filed in the year 1996 by the plaintiff ostensibly on the ground that defendant no. 3 was demanding the payment from the plaintiff and the same would amount to a double payment being made to defendant no. 1 since the payment had already been made through defendant no. 2. An interim application was filed seeking deposit of the amount by defendant no. 1 ostensibly on the ground that the double payment had been made and in terms of the order dated 07. 10. 1998 of the learned single Judge such payment was directed. This deposit with the plaintiff was to carry an interest of 24 per cent per annum on rs 4. 8 crores and it was further observed that the fixation of the said rate of interest was only on the prima facie view and the parties were at liberty to urge all points available in law with regard to the grant of interest pendente lite.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT no. 1 aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal being fao (OS) no. 290/98. The interim applications in said appeal were disposed of by the order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document