THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM & Anr. v. CANARA BANK AND 4 ORS. A BANK CONSTITUTED AND FUNCTIONING UNDER

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/289/2025 BINOD KUMAR DHANUKA AND ANR S/O LATE H.P DHANUKA, R/O L.K.B. ROAD, SIVASAGAR TOWN, P.O. AND DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM-785640 2: SHREE PRAKASH DHANUKA S/O LATE H.P DHANUKA R/O L.K.B. ROAD SIVASAGAR TOWN P.O. AND DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM-78564 VERSUS CANARA BANK AND 4 ORS. A BANK CONSTITUTED AND FUNCTIONING UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560002 AND ONE OF ITS BRANCHES AMONGST OTHER PLACES AT SIVASAGAR, P.O. AND DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM (THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) 2:CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE AT 112 J.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560002 (THROUGH ITS CEO) 3:THE REGIONAL MANAGER CANARA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE CHOWKIDINGEE ABOVE BANDHAN BANK DIBRUGARH P.O. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH-786001 Page No.# 2/3 4:THE CHIEF MANAGER CANARA BANK SIVASAGAR BRANCH G.N.G. PATH HOSPITAL ROAD SIVASAGAR TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM-785640 5:THE BRANCH MANAGER CANARA BANK SIVASAGAR BRANCH G.N.G. PATH HOSPITAL ROAD SIVASAGAR TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM-78564 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY, MR. A DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CANARA BANK, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER

20.08.2025 Heard Mr A Ganguly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr N Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 09.07.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Sivasagar, in T.S. No. 51/2024.

The petitioners being the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a direction asking the respondents to produce the original resolution dated 16.04.1988, by virtue of which the General Power of Attorney was given to the respondent/defendant Page No.# 3/3 No. 4, for replying to the interrogatories. The learned trial Court refused the prayer on the ground that respondent/defendant No. 4 is a juristic person.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The respondent/defendant No. 4 is the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Sivasagar Branch. The post of the Chief Manager is a designation of the particular person. Therefore, the post of the Chief Manager is not a juristic personality. Therefore, the learned trial Court had committed error in holding the post of the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, to be a juristic person.

It may be mentioned that the General Power of Attorney was produced by the respondent/defendant No. 4 before the Court. This Court is of the opinion that asking the respondents/defendants to produce the original resolution dated 16.04.1988 is necessary for the ends of justice. If it is done, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties. Therefore, the order dated 09.07.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Sivasagar, to that effect, stands modified. The respondents/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall produce the original resolution dated 16.04.1988 in the Court and reply to the interrogatories.