Senior Superintendent Of Post ... vs Om Prakash Agarwal Son Of Shri ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3172 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 194/2021

Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices & Ors.
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                    Versus
Om Prakash Agarwal Son Of Shri Gajanand Agarwal & Ors.
                                                               ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 188/2021 Senior Superintendent Of Post & Ors.

----Appellants Versus Om Prakash Agarwal Son Of Shri Gajanand Agarwal & Ors.

----Respondents S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 190/2021 Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices & Anr.

----Appellants Versus Navneet Agarwal S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal & Ors.

----Respondents S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 335/2021 State Bank Of India

----Appellant Versus Om Prakash Agarwal S/o Shri Gajanand Agarwal & Ors.

----Respondents S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 336/2021 State Bank Of India Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur Through Manager/authorized Signatory

----Appellant Versus Om Prakash Agarwal S/o Shri Gajanand Agarwal & Ors.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv.

Mr. Yash Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. G.P. Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Akshay Sharma, Addl.GC. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Adv. with Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh, Adv.

                         (2 of 5)                                    [CFA-194/2021]


For Respondent No.4       :    Mr. Yash Sharma, Adv. in Appeal
                               Nos.194/2021 and 188/2021




            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                    Order

20/04/2022

Three appeals have been filed by the Post Office and two

appeals have been filed by the State of Bank of India. All these

appeals have arise out of three independent and separate civil

suits decided by separate judgments dated 02.03.2021 and

03.03.2021, whereby and whereunder, the civil suits filed by the

respondent-plaintiffs have been decreed and plaintiffs have been

allowed to recover their deposited amount in the MIS account and

RD account, amounting Rs.5,35,056/- in Appeal No.194/2021,

Rs.5,88,212/- in Appeal No.188/2021 and Rs.2,67,500/- in Appeal

No.190/2021 respectively with interest @ 9% from the date of

filing of the suit, jointly and severely from the Post Office,

Government agent the Bank. In appeal No.190/2021, Bank was

not made party in the suit, however no liability fastened on Bank.

From perusal of impugned judgments, it transpires that the

respondent-plaintiffs deposited a lump-sum amount in MIS

account through the agent of Union of India. The interest accrued

from such deposited amount was agreed to be deposited in

recurrent deposit account (RD account). Both accounts were

opened by the plaintiff before the Post Office. It appears that after

completion of the period of MIS and RD accounts, plaintiffs came

to know that their deposited amount has already been encashed

prematurely. Plaintiffs lodged FIR and filed three civil suits against

the Post Office, the concerned agent of Union of India and the

(3 of 5) [CFA-194/2021]

Bank. In FIR, after investigation Police has submitted charge-

sheet which is said to be pending under trial. In civil suits, the trial

Court has passed decree for recovery of money in favour of

plaintiffs against the Post Office, agent and the Bank jointly and

severely, except in civil suit giving rise to appeal No.190/2021,

wherein the Bank is not party.

Learned counsel appearing for the Post Office submits that

from their accounts, the amount of plaintiffs has already been

withdrawn and the trial Court has committed illegality in holding

the liability of the Post Office to repay the deposited amount.

The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that in

one civil suit giving rise to appeal No.190/2021, Bank is not at all

party and in other two civil suits connecting to appeals

No.194/2021 and 188/2021, the trial Court has committed

illegality and jurisdictional error in fastening the liability, jointly

and severally including the Bank. The bank merely has allowed

encahsment of the cheque in the name of plaintiffs and has no

involvement in premature withdrawal of the deposits of plaintiffs

from the Post Office. Charge-sheet has also not been filed against

Bank through the agent appointed and authorized by Union of

India.

Having heard learned counsel for both parties and on perusal

of impugned judgments, it transpires that the trial Court has

considered contentions of all parties in detailed and recorded

findings that it is not in dispute that plaintiffs deposited the

amount in MIS and RD accounts in the Post Office, and later on

deposited amount was encashed prematurely, it was observed that

plaintiffs did not withdraw the amount prematurely and their

deposited amount before Post Office have been misappropriated.

(4 of 5) [CFA-194/2021]

The trial Court found that if concerned Officers of the Post Office

allowed premature encashment of the MIS and RD accounts,

without proper verification of the person concerned, for their

negligent act, the Post Office is liable to pay deposited amount to

the plaintiffs. Simultaneously, the trial Court also declined to

absolve the Bank from its liability jointly and severely while

deciding issue No.4. Thus Post Office and Bank have also been

held liable, with the agent concerned, to pay the amount

deposited by the plaintiffs.

In such backdrop of facts and findings of the trial Court, this

Court finds that all appeals require consideration in detail.

Hence, these are admitted.

All respondents have already put in appearance, hence no

need to issue notices.

Service is complete.

Heard on the stay applications.

Having considered facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the nature of decree, since the trial court has recorded

a specific finding that the Post Office can not be absolved from its

liability to pay the amount deposited by the plaintiffs, this Court

deems it just and proper that in case the appellant Post Office

deposits the principal amount of Rs.5,35,056/- in Appeal

No.194/2021, Rs.5,88,212/- in Appeal No.188/2021 and

Rs.2,67,500/- in Appeal No.190/2021, before the trial court within

a period of six weeks, the execution of impugned decree qua

appellants-Post Office shall remain stayed. If Post Office would not

deposit the principal amount, respondent-decree holders would be

free to execute the decree. On deposition of such amount, the

same be disbursed to the respondent-decree holders on furnishing

(5 of 5) [CFA-194/2021]

a written undertaking by them that in case appellants-Post Office

succeed in their first appeals, they will restitute the amount. In

case Post Office deposits the principal amount, the respondent-

decree holders may proceed for recovery of interest part against

the agent who is also liable jointly and severely but has not

preferred any appeal.

There is no prima facie finding against the Bank, therefore

impugned decrees operating against the Bank are concerned,

same shall remain stayed, at this stage.

With the aforesaid observations, all stay applications and

other applications for vacation of ex-parte stay order stand

disposed of.

After completion of the proceedings of deposition and

disbursements of the decretal amount, record of the case be sent

to this Court.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

Ashwani/-133-137

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)