Delhi High Court
State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Sh. Mukesh Kumar & Anr. on 7 March, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.593/2001
% 7th March, 2011
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ...... Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
SH. MUKESH KUMAR & ANR. ...... 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 case is on the 'Regular Board' of this Court since 17.1.2011.
Today, it is effective item No.6. Although it is 3.30 P.M. nobody has chosen
to appear for the appellant, the respondents having not appeared in this
appeal in spite of service. I have therefore perused the record 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 16.8.2001 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff/bank for recovery
RFA No.593/2001 Page 1 of 4
of Rs.2,03,181/- was dismissed. The suit was dismissed even though all the
security documents, the statement of account and service of the legal notice
was proved, on the ground that the appellant bank had relied upon two
acknowledgements of debts dated 16.4.1996 and 30.5.1996, however, only
the acknowledgments of debts dated 16.4.1996 were proved as Ex.PW1/9
and Ex.PW1/10, but the acknowledgments of debts dated 30.5.1996 with
respect to two accounts was not filed and hence not proved. The suit has
been held to be barred by limitation and dismissed. Suit was also dismissed
on the ground that the same was not shown to have been validly signed and
filed.
3. Before the trial court, the appellant bank proved the filing of the suit
through Sh. H.C.Grover who was the branch Manager. The trial court has
held that the suit is not validly instituted on the ground that though the
deposition of witness PW-1 proved that he identified the signatures of Sh.
Grover on plaint and vakalatnama, but the witness did not identify and prove
as to where the same were on the plaint. This logic of the trial court is
clearly questionable and erroneous because it is not necessary that the
signatures have to be identified by marking of a point 'A' and 'B' thereon.
Once, the signatures have been identified, it should be held that the suit is
validly instituted. In any case, Sh. H.C.Grover was the Manager of the bank
and therefore a principal officer within the meaning of the expression as
found in Order 29 Rule 1 CPC and consequently, the suit has been validly
instituted. This issue is no longer res integra and so held by the Supreme
RFA No.593/2001 Page 2 of 4
Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs Naresh, AIR 1997 SC 3,
wherein it has been held that suits of corporation including banks should not
be dismissed on technical grounds more so when the litigation is contested
to the hilt. I, therefore, hold that the suit was validly instituted and filed.
4. So far as the dismissal of the suit as being barred by limitation is
concerned, I note that the appellant has filed in this court an application
under Order 41 Rule 27 being CM No.1610/2001 along with
acknowledgments of debts dated 30.5.1996 with respect to both the loan
accounts. I accept the application especially as the respondents were ex
parte in the trial court and have also not appeared in this court after service.
The application for additional evidence as also the memo of appeal where
the execution of the revival letter/acknowledgment letter dated 30.5.1996
have been mentioned, are supported by the affidavits of the branch Manager
and principal officer of the appellant bank. I have accordingly, taken these
documents in evidence and have today marked the same as Ex.PX-1 and
Ex.PX-2. I feel that the application for additional evidence ought to be
allowed not only in the interest of justice but also because this court as an
appellate court requires the same so as to clarify the issue of limitation.
Once we read Ex.PX-1 and Ex.PX-2 as evidence, quite clearly, the suit is
within limitation.
5. In view of the above, appeal is accepted, the suit of the appellant/bank
against the defendants/respondents is decreed for a sum of Rs.2,03,181/-
RFA No.593/2001 Page 3 of 4
along with the pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum simple till
realization of the decretal amount with costs of the present appeal being the
court fees filed. Decree sheet be prepared. Trial court record be sent back.
MARCH 07, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
