RAJARAM AND BROTHERS Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment/decree dated 28-11- 2002 passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Civil Suit No. 2-B/96 wherein the said court decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against appellants/defendants for recovery of Rs.56,000.00 with interest.

(2.) Respondent/Plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.56,000.00 on 7/3/1996 which was registered as Civil Suit No. 2- B/1996 before the trial Court. Appellants/defendants filed written statement and counter claim on 9/7/1996. The main dispute between the parties is with respect to entries made on 6/10/1993 in the ledger pertaining to the defendants marked as Ex. P/11 (D & E). There was a credit balance in the account to the extent of Rs.304.00 on 6/10/1993. Two entries with respect to penal interest were made. Respondent bank has not mentioned the grounds for charging penal interest and not explained on what ground the bank is entitled for higher rate of interest. The bank officials inspite of specific questionings could not explain the grounds for charging penal interest and they are also not able to prove on what basis the bank can further charge interest on the amount of interest when the principal amount was not due to the borrower and had amount in his credit on the date of charging of the said interest.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of Shri M.L. Pandey (PW/1) who deposed before the trial court that without perusal of ledger of the period of his incumbency he cannot say that the transaction of the appellants was satisfactory or not. He further deposed that the ledger of that period is not filed in the case. He would further submit that the trial court has not appreciated the provisions of Sec. 21(A) of Banking Regulation Act 1949 . The court has to examine as to whether the interest has been applied for as per circular of Reserve Bank of India or the contract between the parties or not. The trial court erred in holding that counter claim is barred by limitation. The trial court has not evaluated the evidence in its true perspective, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.