Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: RP/26/2025
CNR No.DLNW010113312025
Canara Bank
Vs.
Amit Thakur
07.09.2026
Present: Sh.Subhash Chander, Ld. Counsel for
applicant/plaintiff.
None for defendant.
Arguments on the present review petition under
order 47 rule 1 CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff are heard. Record
perused.
In the review petition it is stated that vide judgment
dated 16.09.2025, this court has decreed the suit only against
defendants no.2(Ganesh Thakur) and 3(Smt. Jai Shree) but held
that the plaintiff has failed to prove the liability of the defendant
no.1(Amit Thakur) on the ground that the letters acknowledging
liability were not formally brought on record or proved during
evidence. It is stated that the plaintiff presented these
acknowledgment letters and orally requested the court to take
them into consideration. That the defendants have not raised any
objection to their consideration. That the existence of these
acknowledgment letter was never disputed by the defendants
throughout the proceedings.
It is stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United
Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar (1996) 6 SCC 660 has held that
the public interest should not be defeated on mere technicalities
and the procedural defects which do not got to the root of the
matter should not defeat a just cause. It is prayed that the
application may kindly be allowed.
Heard. Record perused.
-- 1 of 3 --
2.
Canara Bank Vs. Amit Thakur
The perusal of the impugned judgment dated
16.09.2025 reveals that the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide
detailed observation contained in para 38 of the judgment has
dealt with the arguments raised by Ld.counsel for plaintiff in this
regard, at length. After considering all the material on record,
Ld., Predecessor of this court has come to the conclusion that the
plaintiff bank has failed to prove its case against defendant no.1
who was minor at the time of availing the loan. It is an admitted
fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove the acknowledgment
letter, if any allegedly executed by defendant no.1, after attaining
the majority. It is also true that the plaintiff bank has not sought
directions of the court to place on record such acknowledgment
at later stage during trial.
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was enacted with
the object of ensuring speedy and effective adjudication of
commercial disputes. The legislative intent is to facilitate
expeditious disposal of commercial matters by prescribing
special procedures and timelines, thereby reducing delays in the
resolution of commercial disputes. However, the special
procedure prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act does not
dispense with the requirement of proving documents and other
material evidence in accordance with law. A party cannot seek to
cure, in review proceedings, an omission to place and prove
material evidence during the trial, particularly when no error
apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated.
The plaintiff has failed to place on record the alleged
acknowledgment letter executed by the defendant no.1 minor at
-- 2 of 3 --
3.
Canara Bank Vs. Amit Thakur
the relevant stage. The plaintiff has failed to prove the said
acknowledgment letter during the trial. Therefore in the present
facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there
is no error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient
cause justifying the review jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly
the application/petition under order 47 rule 1 CPC moved on
behalf of applicant/petitioner is dismissed.
File be consigned to record room on completion of
necessary formalities.
( Devender Kumar Jangala )
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West, Rohini, Delhi.
07.09.2026
-- 3 of 3 --