Jaspal Singh vs The District Manager And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 19267 P&H

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142304




RSA-3278-2023 (O&M) &                                        2023:PHHC:142304
RSA-3276-2023 (O&M)
                                      -1-
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                               1. RSA-3278-2023 (O&M)
                                                  Reserved on: 31.10.2023
                                                  Date of decision: 07.11.2023

JASPAL SINGH                                                 ..Appellant
                                    Versus
THE DISTRICT MANAGER AND OTHERS                              ..Respondents

2. RSA-3276-2023 (O&M)

JASPAL SINGH ..Appellant Versus THE DISTRICT MANAGER AND ANOTHER ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

1. These two regular second appeals filed by the same appellant

through a common counsel have come up for hearing. Though, both the suits

were separately filed and decided, however, both the suits are connected.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the

appellant, these two appeals are being disposed of by a common order.

3. In RSA-3278-2023, the plaintiff has assailed the correctness of

the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court on 12.07.2023.

The plaintiff's suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that non-

payment of admissible service as well as retiral benefits to the plaintiff

accrued on account of retirement of the plaintiff from service is illegal,

malacious, factitious and unconstitutional and the petitioner is entitled to all

the service as well as retiral benefits along with interest at the rate of 18%

1 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142304

RSA-3278-2023 (O&M) & 2023:PHHC:142304 RSA-3276-2023 (O&M)

per annum from the date of retirement till regularization was decreed by the

trial Court, however, in appeal, the judgment and decree was reversed.

4. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,

the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

5. The plaintiff (appellant herein) claims that he has joined the

Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank on 29.11.1979 as a clerk. On attaining

the age of superannuation he has retired on 30.06.2012. He filed a suit on

07.09.2016 complaining that his service as well as retiral benefits have not

been paid to him even after 4 years of his retirement. The defendants while

contesting the suit has asserted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to

entertain this matter. On merits, it was denied by the plaintiff that he has not

been paid service and retiral benefits. It was stated that Rs.10,00,000/- and

Rs.3,89,168.52/- were released on 27.06.2013, as gratuity and leave

encashment, respectively. Thereafter, Rs.2,21,506/- was released as arrears

of revised scale with effect from 01.06.2006. This payment was also made

on 27.06.2013. Pension fund of Rs.1,02,864/- was released on 01.07.2013,

whereas, provident fund of Rs.15,19,392/- was released on 06.08.2012.

Thus, the plaintiff has been paid the amount of Rs.32,32,930.52/-.

6. The trial Court decreed the suit while observing that the

defendants have only placed on record photocopies of the advises and the

vouchers to prove the payment of retiral benefits. The Court drew an adverse

inference against the bank and directed the defendant-bank to pay the

amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

7. The concluding part of the judgment of the trial Court reads as

under:-

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142304

RSA-3278-2023 (O&M) & 2023:PHHC:142304 RSA-3276-2023 (O&M)

"In view of the detailed discussion held under aforesaid issues and guided by aforesaid law, suit of plaintiff stands decreed with costs to the effect that the act of defendants of not providing statement of account in respect of Joint Bank account bearing ledger Folio No. 98/40 and non-payment of the amount in the above-said account to the plaintiff by the defendants is illegal, null and void, cryptic, unconstitutional, against law and principles of natural justice and the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the amount along-with interest @ 12% P.A. upto date from the above-mentioned account. Defendants are directed to issue statement of account of the above- mentioned account and to make payment of the amount standing deposited in the above-mentioned account along-with interest @ 12% P.A. upto date within two months of passing of the judgment. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to judicial record-room, Gurdaspur."

8. The defendant-bank filed first appeal along with an application

under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

9. Though, The learned First Appellate Court dismissed the

application for additional evidence, however, allowed the appeal.

10. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the

appellant and with his able assistance perused the paperbook.

11. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the

First Appellate Court has erred in reversing the judgment of the trial Court as

the bank failed to prove that the plaintiff had paid the entire retiral dues. He

submits that only photocopies were produced and therefore, the First

Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the judgment of the learned

trial Court.

12. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned

counsel representing the appellant.

13. Firstly, the plaintiff has failed to disclose about the balance

payment, if any, from the retiral dues. The plaintiff came to the Court while

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142304

RSA-3278-2023 (O&M) & 2023:PHHC:142304 RSA-3276-2023 (O&M)

asserting that all his admissible service benefits as well as the retiral benefits

have not been paid. Whereas, the defendants while filing the written

statement has disclosed that the plaintiff has been paid Rs.32,32,930.52/- on

various dates. The defendants in order to prove the payment produced

photocopies of advises/vouchers showing the payment of the amount. The

bank also produced Ex.D-1, D-2 & D-3, the cheques drawn towards self by

the wife of the appellant, who withdrew Rs.17,13,500/- from her joint

account along with the appellant. It was the plaintiff, who had to stand on his

own legs to prove his case. It is upon the plaintiff to prove that the payment

already made is not sufficient or inadequate and he is entitled to an

additional amount than what has already been paid to him. The plaintiff did

not lead any evidence. The plaintiff retired as an Assistant Manager from the

bank. First of all, he was required to specifically plead the relief claimed by

him. Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides that

the relief sought in the plaint by the plaintiff either simply or in the

alternative is required to be specifically stated. However, general or other

relief, which may always be given as the Court may think just can be

awarded even though not asked for. However, in the given facts of the case

the plaintiff was required to plead and prove as to how much amount was

payable. The learned counsel representing the appellant has been repeatedly

requested to disclose the details of the balance amount, however, he insisted

that only photocopies of documents were produced and therefore, the trial

Court correctly drew an adverse inference.

14. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arun Migo Vishwasree,

2003(8) SCC 752, the Supreme Court explained the difference between the

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142304

RSA-3278-2023 (O&M) & 2023:PHHC:142304 RSA-3276-2023 (O&M)

documents, which are inadmissible in evidence and the documents, which

though admissible in evidence but could not be admitted in evidence

because the primary document was not produced. In that eventuality, the

Supreme Court held that once the document has been admitted and sufficient

evidence is led, then subsequently the party cannot object to its admissibility.

It is evident that the defendant examined Sh. Dheeraj Mahajan, Branch

Manager of the bank, who tendered vouchers and advises. Sh. Jitender

Singh, Accountant, Head Office was also examined as DW-2. He proved

attested copies of advises Ex.D-5, D-7, D-9, D-11 and D-13.

15. The plaintiff on the other hand, stepped into the witness box

and produced copy of notice, postal receipt and newspaper cutting. The copy

of the judgment dated 22.10.2018, cashbook receipt and ledger was also

produced.

16. The civil cases are required to be decided on preponderance of

probabilities. The defendant prima facie discharged his onus. Now, it was for

the plaintiff to prove that the amount already paid was incomplete and some

more amount was due. However, the plaintiff failed. Hence, this Court does

not find it appropriate to interfere in the findings of fact arrived at by the

trial Court.

17. In RSA-3276-2023, the same plaintiff filed a suit for grant of

decree of declaration to the effect that the act of the defendants in failing to

provide the statement of account in respect of joint bank account bearing

ledger Folio No.98/40 and non-payment of the amount in the said account is

illegal, null and void. In the aforesaid case, the trial Court decreed the suit,

however, the First Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence found that

5 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142304

RSA-3278-2023 (O&M) & 2023:PHHC:142304 RSA-3276-2023 (O&M)

the judgment passed by the trial Court is erroneous. It is the case of the

plaintiff that he along with his wife was having a joint account with ledger

Folio No.98/40. In the year 2012, the computerization of accounts in the

bank was carried out. The plaintiff wants statement of account before

computerization. It has also been claimed that the plaintiff and his wife had

deposited approximately Rs.1 crore, which is not getting paid.

18. On the other hand, the bank has stated that upto the year 2012,

the accounts were being maintained manually, and thereafter,

computerization of bank account was carried out nationally. In reference to

the bank account, the first holder is appellant's wife. She availed the loan of

Rs.1,00,000/- but defaulted in repayment of the same. The appellant's son

has also taken loan from the bank amounting to Rs.24,50,000/-. A criminal

complaint was also pending regarding the same. It was submitted that the

plaintiff never deposited Rs.1 crore as is being claimed by him.

19. In the evidence, the respondent-bank produced account

statement Ex.D-1 from the year 2013. The loan documents Ex.D-2 to Ex.D-

14 were also produced. The trial Court decreed the suit by drawing an

adverse inference against the bank as the statement of account before 2012

has not been produced before the Court. It is evident from the factual matrix

that the trial Court passed a vague decree.

20. The bank has filed first appeal. On reappreciation of the

evidence, the bank found that the plaintiff has withdrawn Rs.1,20,00,000/-

approximately on the basis of forged vouchers in between 08.06.2006 to

09.06.2012. It was also found that when the computerization was completed,

the plaintiff's account showed a balance of Rs.38,243/-, which was reduced

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142304

RSA-3278-2023 (O&M) & 2023:PHHC:142304 RSA-3276-2023 (O&M)

to Rs.73/- on 31.08.2019. The plaintiff was required to prove that he has

deposited Rs.1 crore. He was required to lead some evidence to prove the

same. He could not shift the burden of proof by merely taking a stand that he

is unable to trace the old passbook of his bank account.

21. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the

bank being a public institution is dealing with the public money and hence

discharging a public function. By virtue of bank discharging a public

function, they were required to produce and prove the defence taken by

them.

22. In this case, at the first instance, the prayer of the petitioner is

ingenuity of the counsel. The plaintiff without specifying the remaining

amount wants direction from the Court to the respondent-bank to pay the

amount which certainly does not go in line with Order VII Rule 7 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff has not filed a suit for recovery.

The plaintiff has also not produce any material to prove the amount lying in

the account before computerization of the bank record. From the year 2013,

the statement of account has been produced and the plaintiff has failed to

draw the attention of the Court to any error in the account statement.

Moreover, the First Appellate Court has concluded that the appellant's wife

as well as son defaulted in the repayment of the loan amount.

23. In these circumstances, the First Appellate Court has concluded

that the plaintiff has failed to make out his case.

24. The standard of proof required to decide the civil cases is on

preponderance of probabilities. In this case, the defendant has produced

material which were in their possession to prove their defence. At the cost of

7 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142304

RSA-3278-2023 (O&M) & 2023:PHHC:142304 RSA-3276-2023 (O&M)

repetition, the amount payable for the joint account is Rs.73/- in the year

31.08.2019. It would not be appropriate to burden respondent-bank only

because the plaintiff has asserted certain facts, which have not been proved.

25. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, the result is

inevitable. The appeals filed by the appellant are dismissed.

26. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

November 07th, 2023                                    (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay                                                          JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned         :       Yes/No
Whether reportable                :       Yes/No




                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142304

                                       8 of 8