LAWS(DLH)-1991-4-95

CANARA BANK Vs. SHRI YAG DATT PURI

Decided On April 23, 1991
CANARA BANK Appellant
V/S
Shri Yag Datt Puri Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - A suit for recovery of Rs. 29,978.01 was filed by the appellant Canara Bank, through its R.K. Puram Branch, New Delhi, against the respondent, who is a sole proprietor of M/s. Vinni's Stiches. The trial Court framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:--

(2.) After consideration of the evidence placed on record by the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff bank has proved its claim for recovery of only Rs. 20,172.38. The suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff in the year 1984 and had thus included interest on the principal amount as on date of filing in its claim. However, the trial court while decreeing the suit took into consideration one deposit of Rs. 5,000.00 made by the respondent, and also a sum of Rs. 3,000.00, credited by the bank on account of sale of its shares and observed that as on 31-12-1982 the liability of the respondent stood reduced and the respondent was liable to pay only the reduced amount of Rs. 20,172.38. The trial Court did not award interest after 31-12-1982 and also refused to grant pendente-lite interest and costs. The appellant bank has, therefore, filed this Regular First Appeal against the judgment of the trial court for modification of the decree.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was entitled to get only adjustment for the payment made as and when the amount was credited to his account and the appellant had accordingly given the necessary credit which is evident from the statement of account on record which was filed by the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the reason given by the trial court for not allowing interest and costs and for deciding issues No. 4 and 5 against the appellant, is not correct, in as much as under Sec. 176 of the Indian Contract Act the option was with the appellant and the appellant could either sell the shares in their possession or file a suit for recovery. The appellant chose to file a suit and that could be no reason for not allowing interest and costs to the appellant.