PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. SHRI SITA RAM MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 10.12.2002. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff and granted mandatory injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff to remove the lien in the account with respect to an amount of ' 1,75,000/-.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff was operating a current account in the name of M/s Naresh Electric Company with Krishna Nagar branch of the appellant/defendant/Bank. The respondent/plaintiff had deposited a cheque No. 534531 for ' 1,75,000/- drawn in its favour by one M/s Arun Electricals. This cheque was credited in the account of the respondent/plaintiff on 12.9.1997. After about one year and four months i.e. on 19.2.1999 the appellant/defendant/Bank marked a lien for this amount in the account i.e. balance in the account was taken as less by '1,75,000/-. This, the appellant/Bank did, because it transpired that the cheque drawn by M/s Arun Electricals in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was infact lost in clearing from Reserve Bank of India, Clearing House to the Chandni Chowk Branch of the appellant-Bank and which aspect was noticed after about one year and four months. The respondent/plaintiff contended that there was negligence on behalf of the appellant/defendant-Bank, inasmuch as because of this huge time gap M/sArun Electricals had closed the account with the Chandni Chowk Branch of the appellant-Bank and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff could not recover this amount from M/s Arun Electricals.

(3.) The appellant/Bank took up the defence that they were entitled to lien on the account because of not receiving credit from M/s Arun Electricals. The appellant claimed benefit of certain Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. The relevant issues in this regard as framed by the trial Court are issue Nos. 3, 8 and 9, and these issues were dealt with by the trial Court, inter alia, by giving the following findings:-