Vijaya Bank vs Digvijay Rana
2010 Latest Caselaw 5050 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                         Date of Judgment : 02nd November, 2010

+                         R.S.A.No.26/2002

VIJAYA BANK                                      ...........Appellant
                          Through:   None.

                   Versus

DIGVIJAY RANA                                   ..........Respondent
                          Through:   Mr.Ajeet Kumar, Mr.Subhashish
                                     Bowmick & Mr.Vijay Tandon,
                                     Advocates.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

                                                           Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)

1.     This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated

26.7.2001.    The impugned judgment had reversed the finding of

the trial judge dated 21.12.1999. The trial judge had decreed the

suit of the plaintiff i.e. of the Vijaya Bank. The impugned judgment

had dismissed the suit.

2.     The matter has remained on board but none has cared to

appear for the appellant. On 27.9.2010 a specific request had been

made by the counsel for the appellant to examine the record;

thereafter he has not appeared. The appeal had been admitted on

18.11.2003.       Substantial question of law has not yet been

formulated. Substantial questions of law formulated in the body of

the appeal have been noted.


 RSA No.26/2002                                           Page 1 of 2
 3.    The    plaintiff   bank   had   filed   a   suit   for   recovery      of

Rs.98,630.12 against the defendant.            It was alleged that the

account of the defendant had become overdrawn; an amount of

Rs.78,959.12 was outstanding; he was liable to pay interest at the

rate of 23% per annum with quarterly rests.

4.    The defence of the defendant was that he had deposited an

amount of Rs.33,580/-. In February, 1991 there was a credit

balance of Rs.1452.57 in his favour. The credit card issued to him

in February 1991 was never utilized.

5.    The impugned judgment had noted that the trial court had

decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of entries in the

statement of account Ex.PW1/3. Testimony of PW1 and PW2 had

been re-appreciated.      The impugned judgment had further noted

that the charge slips were not produced; this was primary evidence

in the absence of which a money decree could not follow.

6.    The relevant extract of the aforenoted finding is reproduced

hereinbelow:

         "7. If we compare the charge slips Ex.PW2/1 to PW2/8 with
         the statement of acount Ex.PW1/3, it will be seen that the
         charge slips pertaining to the debit entries made after
         27.02.1991, have not been produced by the respondent bank.
         The charge slips bearing signature of the card holder were the
         primary evidence which were required to corroborate the
         entries made in the account books. Since the charge slips
         were not produced, a money decree should not have been
         granted merely on the basis of debit entries shown in the
         statement of account Ex.PW1/3."

7.    This finding calls for no interference. It can in no manner be

said to be perverse or out of context. No question of law much less

any substantial question of law has arisen in this appeal; it is

dismissed.

                                              INDERMEET KAUR, J.

NOVEMBER 02, 2010. rb