AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3 ::1996 AIR SCW 4149 ::1997 (4) Com LJ 160 SC ::(1997) 4 ComLJ 160 ::(1998) BankJ 324 ::(1996) 23 CorLA 80 ::1997 (1) Civ LJ 721 ::(1996) 2 CivilCourtC 690 ::1996 (6) SCC 660 ::1996 (4) CurCC 27 ::(1996) 2 BankCas 550 ::1997 (90) Com Cas 329 ::(1997) 1 ICC 318 ::(1997) 2 Mad LJ 1 ::(1996) 4 LandLR 241 ::1997 (1) BankLJ 229 ::(1997) 2 APLJ 26

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Punjab and Haryana)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): J. S. Verma, B. N. Kirpal , JJ

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.6 R.14, O.29 R.1— Suit instituted or defended by Public Corporation like bank - Allowing Public interest to be defeated on mere technicality - Not rectified - Suit by bank for recovery of loan - Dismissal on ground of plaint being not signed and verified by competent person - Not proper. A. S. R. No. 869 of 1993, D/- 30-8-1993 (Punj and Har), Reversed. Where the Courts came to a conclusion that money had been taken by certain parties from bank and certain persons had stood as guarantors and that the claim of the bank was justified it will be a travesty of justice if the bank is to be non suited for a technical reason such as plaint was not signed by competent person which does not go to the root of the matter and the only defect which was alleged on behalf of the parties was one which was curable. In cases where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation like bank, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the Courts, under the Code of Civil @page-SC4 Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a substantive right should ....