M/S. Tola Ram & Sons & Anr. vs State Bank Of India And Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5346 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  C.M.(M) No.1072/2011 and C.M. No.6284/2012

%                                                       29th October, 2014

M/S. TOLA RAM & SONS & ANR.                      ..... Petitioners
                  Through: Mr. S.C. Juneja, Advocate.

                          Versus


STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.                  ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. P. Gowthan, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the order of the trial court dated 20.5.2011 by which the trial court

allowed the application of the petitioner/plaintiff in a limited manner i.e

allowed certain evidence to be led on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff but

rejected the prayer for the other evidence.

2. Before me, counsel for the petitioner confines the relief to

leading of evidence of only one witness namely Sh. V.N. Sehgal to prove the

original of the counterfoils of the deposit slips issued by the

defendant/respondent no.1-bank itself.

3. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Billa Jagan

Mohan Reddy & Anr. Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 659

that even at the stage of final arguments unimpeachable documents can be

allowed to be filed. In the present case, surely counterfoils of the deposit

slips of the defendant/respondent no.1 bank are unimpeachable documents

and they can be allowed to be filed and proved in view of the ratio of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy

(supra).

4. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by allowing the

petitioner/plaintiff to file the original counterfoils of the deposit slips and to

lead evidence of one witness namely Sh. V.N. Sehgal to prove the original

of the counterfoils of the deposit slips by which deposits were made by the

petitioner/plaintiff with the defendant/respondent no.1 bank. If the

defendant/respondent no.1 bank wants to lead evidence to rebut the evidence

which is now being allowed to be led by the petitioner/plaintiff, the

defendant/respondent no.1 bank can do so and for which liberty is

accordingly granted.

5. Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of

aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 29, 2014/Ne