Delhi High Court
Canara Bank vs M/S. Choice Apparels Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 21 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.364/2001
% 21st February, 2011
CANARA BANK ...... Appellant
Through: None
VERSUS
M/S. CHOICE APPARELS PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This matter is on the Regular Board of this Court since 3.1.2011.
Today, this matter is effective item no.7 on the Regular Board. It is 2:40 pm
and none appears for the parties. I have therefore perused the case and am
proceeding to dispose of the appeal.
2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment
and decree dated 3.4.2001 whereby the suit of the appellant/bank was partly
decreed to the extent of the amounts stated to be due in the
RFA No.364/2001 Page 1 of 4
acknowledgement of debts letters.
3. The appellant/bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,25,632/- along
with pendent lite and future interest @ 21.75% per annum compounded with
quarterly rests. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.80,555/-
under a bill of exchange, which was discounted on 11.7.1983. The suit was
filed on 3.3.1994 i.e. more than 10 years after the discounting of the bill.
The appellant/bank relied upon three acknowledgments of debt dated
8.5.1985 (Ex.PW2/13), 7.4.1988(Ex.PW3/1) and 4.3.1991(Ex.PW3/2) to seek
extension of period of limitation.
4. The Trial Court has decreed the suit only for Rs.13,346.60 paisa
with interest with effect from 1.1.1991 inasmuch as in the acknowledgement
of debt letter dated 4.3.1991 (Ex.PW3/2), the amount which was stated to be
due from the borrower was specifically written to be Rs.13,346.60 paisa with
interest thereafter due from 1.1.1991.
5. The relevant finding of the Trial Court in this regard is contained
in issue no.3 which reads as under:-
"Issue no.3
The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.2,25,632/-. The case of the plaintiff bank is that the bill
no.FDB-117/83 for Rs.80,555/- had been discounted by
plaintiff bank on 11.7.83. The suit has been filed by the
plaintiff bank on 3.3.94. The plaintiff bank is claiming
extension of limitation on the basis of acknowledgment of
debt dated 8.5.85, 7.4.88 and 6.3.91 by the defendants.
The case of the plaintiff bank in respect of Rs.13,346.60 p.
which has been acknowledged vide letter dated 6.3.91
Ex.PW3/3/ is within limitation. On behalf of the plaintiff bank
it has been submitted that regarding the plea of time barred
claim of the defendants, the bank has proved loan
RFA No.364/2001 Page 2 of 4
documents dated 6.5.82, discounting of documents on
11.7.83, further acknowledgment of debts on 8.5.85, 7.4.88
and 6.3.91 which the defendant have failed to rebut. The
filling of the amount was of Rs.37,114.03 p. with interest
due from 30.4.85 in acknowledgment of debt dated 8.5.85
and of Rs.13,346.60p. with interest w.e.f. 1.9.91 in
acknowledgment of debt dated 6.3.91 was wrongly done.
The amount of Rs.37,114.03 p. and Rs.13,346.60 p. was
filled up as the said amounts were due on dates mentioned
in acknowledgments but in fact these were excluding
interest from 11.7.83. The amount of interest was not
debited uptill 31.3.91 and it was debited only on 31.3.91 for
almost eight years which amounted to Rs.1,00,467.40p. The
mistakes done in acknowledgment is genuine and bonafide
which can be very well explained when read with statement
of account filed by band which is duly certified under
Banker's Books of Evidence Act and proved. Hence, the suit
is not time barred. On behalf of the defendant it has been
contended that the claim of the plaintiff only to the extent
which has been acknowledged vide Ex.PW3/3 is within time
and rest of the claim is not within limitation. Ld. counsel for
the defendant has relied upon Bindeshwari Prasad Vs.
District Board of Saran through Special Officer AIR 1961
Patna 134 wherein it was held as under:
"When, therefore, the plaintiff submits his bill for a
certain amount of money, for work done, to the
defendant, and the defendant passes the bill for a
lesser amount and disallows the plaintiff's claim for
the rest and expressly denies and repudiates its
liability in respect of the remaining amount of the
bill, the mere fact that the defendant passes the
bill for a lesser amount and thereby admits its
liability to pay the sum allowed, cannot amount to
an acknowledgment of its liability to the plaintiff to
pay also the balance amount of the bill which was
expressly disallowed."
It is present case the acknowledgment Ex.PW3/3
specifically provides that defendant no.1 is acknowledging
the liability of Rs.13,346.60p. only under the said guarantee
which includes interest, charges etc, upto 31.12.90. When
the amount of Rs.13,346.60p. has been mentioned in
Ex.PW3/3 including the interest upto 31.12.90, there is no
force in the plea of the ld. counsel for the plaintiff that it did
not include the interest and plea of the plaintiff has to be
rejected. The suit of the plaintiff is within time only in
RFA No.364/2001 Page 3 of 4
respect of the amount mentioned in Ex.PW3/3 and rest of
the claim is barred by limitation."
6. I have myself examined all the three acknowledgements of
debts. In the last acknowledgement of debt dated 4.3.1991 it is very clearly
written that the amount due is only Rs.13,346.60 paisa with interest from
1.1.1991. In view of this categorical figure mentioned in the
acknowledgement of debt, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit only
for that amount. The Trial Court was justified in returning the finding that an
amount of Rs.13,346.60 paisa cannot swell up from 1.1.1991 with interest
into the huge suit amount of Rs.2,25,632/- when the suit was filed on
3.3.1994 i.e., just about 3 years later.
7. This Court is not entitled to interfere with the findings of the Trial
Court, where two views are possible and the Trial Court adopts one plausible
view, unless the view taken by the Trial Court is wholly illegal and perverse. I
do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree
which calls for interference by this Court in appeal. The appeal being
without merits is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs. Trial Court record be sent back.
FEBRUARY 21, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
