ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 17.1.2011. Today it is effective item no. 3 on the Regular Board. It is 12:45 pm but no one appears for the parties. I have therefore perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal. The respondents are ex parte in this Court as they have failed to appear even after publication. They were ex parte even in the Trial Court.

(2.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.8.2001 whereby the suit of the appellant/bank for recovery has been dismissed although the bank proved the due filing/institution of the suit, as also the security documents and also the acknowledgment of debts. THE suit was dismissed basically on the ground that the amounts shown to be due in the acknowledgment of debt forms are not reflected by way of entries in the statement of accounts. I have already noted that the defendants were ex parte, yet the suit was dismissed.

(3.) THE reasoning of the Trial Court is clearly faulty because the balance confirmation letter showed the amount due on a particular date whereas interest is applied/debited in the account on specific dates, and which may not be the dates of the acknowledgment of debt letters. THE Trial Court has therefore committed a clear-cut perversity in requiring that what is the amount due as stated in the acknowledgment of the debt letter have necessarily to find mention in the statement of accounts. THEre is no such requirement in law and nor is the same a practice of any bank whatsoever.