Rajasthan High Court Restores Canara Bank's Recovery Suit, Faults Court For Denying Chance To Remove Defects

The Rajasthan High Court has criticised the “undue haste” with which a Commercial Court handled a Canara Bank recovery suit, noting that the bank was not given adequate opportunity to remove procedural defects before the suit was dismissed.

“One fails to understand the undue haste and alacrity with which the office of the Commercial Court as well the Court itself acted. Such swiftness, coupled with the fact that the learned Commercial Court also did not grant any opportunity to the appellant by issuing any notice for non-compliance of the objections, which, in any case, appear to us to be technical in nature cannot be countenanced by us.” a division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar observed.

The bench noted that the objections appeared to be technical in nature and that the Commercial Court had not issued any notice to the bank regarding their non-compliance.

The court is hearing Canara Bank's appeal against a July 21, 2026 order of the Commercial Court in Jaipur which rejected its application to restore a recovery suit against Y S Paper Cone and its proprietor, Abdul Hasan.

The suit was dismissed on June 2, 2026, for non-compliance with office objections and non-appearance. The Commercial Court subsequently rejected the restoration application, finding that the bank had not produced documents to support its explanation for the absence.

Canara Bank contended that it had not been given an effective opportunity to remove the procedural defects. It argued that dismissing the suit on its first date had resulted in a denial of substantial justice.

The bank's counsel had appeared before the Commercial Court on June 2 and marked his presence before proceeding to the Sanganer court in Jaipur, where he had other matters listed. According to the explanation recorded in the order, his motorcycle slipped while he was returning, causing injuries.

He reached the Commercial Court at around 12.47 pm. By then, the suit had already been dismissed at 12.20 pm.

The High Court found that the Commercial Court had taken an “over-pedantic view” while rejecting the restoration application.

“Having gone through the contents of the appeal, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the competent bank official, as well as the contents of the application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC, we are of the view that the learned Commercial Court, took an over-pedantic view, that too, in the most mechanical manner, without proper application of mind,” the bench observed.

The court also noted that the suit had been kept for a report on compliance with office objections on June 2. Instead, it was placed before the court on the same day, without prior notice to the bank or adequate opportunity to rectify the defects.

The bench held that this approach had denied the bank a fair opportunity to pursue its case on merits and caused serious prejudice to it.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court restored the suit to its original number and status. It did not decide the merits of the underlying recovery claim