Back
High Court Of Orissa
DEEPAK MISRA
SATYANANDA SAHOO - Appellant
Versus
RATIKANTA PANDA - Respondent
CIV. REVN. 173 Of 1995
Decided On : 08/23/1996
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY - OWNERSHIP DISPUTE - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - LIMITATION - CAUSE OF ACTION - INTERPRETATION OF PLAINT - DUTY OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the maintainability of a suit filed by the plaintiff, claiming ownership of gold ornaments found in a bank locker, on grounds of limitation, res judicata, and undervaluation. The plaintiff had earlier filed a consumer complaint against the bank for deficiency in service, and the District Consumer Forum had directed the bank to return the ornaments to the plaintiff. The petitioner, who was also a claimant to the ornaments, intervened in the consumer proceedings and was impleaded as a party. The State Consumer Commission, on appeal, held that the ownership issue was subject to a declaration by a competent court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the suit was not barred by res judicata since the consumer forums had not finally adjudicated the ownership dispute, and the State Commission had kept the matter open for determination by a civil court. The Court also held that the trial court erred in not addressing the issue of limitation at the outset and in deferring the matter. The Court directed the trial court to reconsider the maintainability of the suit based on a meaningful reading of the plaint alone, excluding any other material.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by res judicata due to the earlier consumer proceedings. 2. Whether the trial court erred in not addressing the issue of limitation at the outset. 3. Whether the cause of action should be determined based solely on the averments in the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of res judicata did not apply because the consumer forums had not finally adjudicated the ownership dispute, and the State Commission had kept the matter open for determination by a civil court. 2. The trial court erred in not addressing the issue of limitation at the outset and in deferring the matter. The court had a duty to examine the plaint and determine whether a clear cause of action existed and whether the suit was filed within the limitation period. 3. The cause of action should be determined based solely on the averments in the plaint, excluding any other material.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition to the extent of directing the trial court to reconsider the maintainability of the suit based on a meaningful reading of the plaint alone, excluding any other material.
DEEPAK MISRA, J.
( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 12-7-95 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court, Cuttack in Title Suit No. 220 of 1995 whereby the said trial Judge accepted the suit as maintainable and declined to deal with the point of maintainability as envisaged under O. 7, R. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present revision.
( 2 ) THE opposite party as plaintiff instituted the suit in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court, Cuttack with a number of prayers which are as follows :-" (A) For a declaration that all the gold ornaments found in the locker No. 113 on 4-9-91 when the same was broken open belong to plaintiff. (b) For a direction to defendant No. 1 to deliver the gold ornaments to the plaintiff on payment of locker hire charges from January, 1985 till date of delivery of the ornaments to the plaintiff. (c)Permanently restraining defendant No. 4 from claiming the said gold ornaments. (d) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be found entitled. (e) Cost of the litigation. "
( 3 ) WITH regard to the cause of action, in para-39 of the plaint the plaintiff pleaded thus :-"that the cause of action for the suit arose on 4-9-91 when the locker No. 113 was broken open, on 5-9-91 when the defendant No. 5 declined to deliver the gold ornaments found in the locker in question to the plaintiff, on 24-1-1994 when the ex parte order was passed in C. D. Case No. 351 of 1993 and on 23-121994 when the plaintiff received the copy of the ex parte order from defendant No. 2. "
( 4 ) BEFORE the suit was taken up for admission, the petitioner entered appearance and questioned the maintainability of the suit as well as prayed for dismissal of the same on the ground of limitation.
( 5 ) THE petitioner brought certain facts to the notice of the Court below which are worth-mentioning. The petitioner was allotted locker No. 113 in the Barjrakabati Road Branch, Cuttack of UCO Bank where he had his Savings Bank Account bearing No. 2094. Since 1980 the petitioner had kept his valuable gold ornaments and was operating the locker on payment of rent. The key of the locker having been lost, the petitioner informed and requested the bank in writing on 31-5-86 to replace the lock of the locker at his cost and intimate him the date of replacement, so as to enable him to remain present at the time of breaking open of the locker. In spite of requests the bank did not intimate him anything and therefore the petitioner was compelled to issue a written reminder on 24-2-92. Later one came to know that the locker had already been opened and all his gold ornaments had been kept in safe custody of the bank after an inventory.
( 6 ) ON 26-2-92 the petitioner submitted a written representation to the bank for return of his ornaments and as the same was not done, the petitioner initiated a proceeding under S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 forming the subject-matter of the Consumer Dispute Case No. 351 of 1993 before the District Consumer Forum, Cuttack for return of his ornaments and also payment of damages on account of deficiency in service Before the consumer forum the bank pleaded that one Shri R. K. Panda (plaintiff in the present suit), the then Manager-in-charge of the Branch, was a rival claimant for the said ornaments for which the bank refused to return the ornaments to the petitioner. The deficiency of service was also disputed. It was admitted that Locker No. 113 had been allotted to the petitioner and rent therefore was being collected from the petitioner's SB Account till 1988. Coming to know about the rival claim of Shri R. K. Panda, the petitioner impleaded him as a party in the aforesaid consumer dispute. Ultimately the District Consumer Forum directed the bank to return the ornaments to the petitioner and awarded a damage of Rs. 5,000/- towards deficiency in service. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the said R.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
