STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. ROHINI TIMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Appellant-Bank challenges the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.10.1996 whereby its suit for recovery of Rs. 3,68,178.89 along with pendente lite and future interest was dismissed by the Trial Court. The Defendants/Respondents were ex parte in the Trial Court and have also not appeared in the present proceedings in spite of service by publication.

(2.) The Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the documents have not been duly proved and also the main case. The relevant para of impugned judgment is para 4 which reads as under:

(3.) I find that the impugned judgment is totally illegal and perverse. The Appellant-Bank through its witness proved the execution of the documents of availing of the facility, the statement of account etc but in spite of the same, the suit has surprisingly been dismissed. The various security documents along with the statement of accounts and the mortage of the property were duly proved by documents 'Exb.P1 to P17'. Though the exhibit number of the statement of accounts was not mentioned in the affidavit by way of evidence, the statement of accounts have also been exhibited as 'Exb.P12 and P13'. The Appellant-Bank, therefore, had clearly proved its case and, therefore, the suit ought to have been decreed, but which was instead dismissed.